Thank you guys for your answers! On 8 August 2013 18:31, Robert Collins <robe...@robertcollins.net> wrote:
> On 9 August 2013 07:51, Martinx - ジェームズ <thiagocmarti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 1- NAT; > > There's no /need/ for it in IP4 in a lot of environments. Only public > cloud providers really need to do NAT in IP4. Mostly because of IPv4 exhaustion, RackSpace Public Cloud ISP give to me, public IPv4 within my cloud... AWS/EC2 now focus on "VPCs" (IPv4 "private") networks but, I'm seeing this act more or less like "milking a dead cow (IPv4)"... > > 2- Floating IPs; > > Implemented via NAT, but not about NAT: they are about being able to > move endpoints instantly without dns cache issues - an HA tool, and a > well-known-address tool. The implementation is changable but the > concept is valuable in IPv6 too IMNSHO. > Mmm... Okay, I understand it a bit better now... I'll research a bit more about it... =) Anyway, I would like to be able to live without it... If possible / not too much trouble (for OpenStack devel team) to be able to disable it with a option... > > > 3- Use of Namespaces. > > I don't see how this is related : with SDN someone can define the same > IPv6 range in two tenants, so namespaces are still needed. > Are you saying that is this: * give to Tenant A (namespace X), the IPv6 block: 2001:1291:200:83f6::/64 * give to Tenant B (namespace Y), the same IPv6 block: 2001:1291:200:83f6::/64 ...possible??? Sounds cool! I'll take a deep look into SDN... -Rob > Thanks for clarifying it for me! - Thiago > > -- > Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com> > Distinguished Technologist > HP Converged Cloud >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
