The last one about multi_host seems weird. The instances still need a gateway in the end, so if you don't use multi_host, that gateway is a single host and if you enable multi_host, the gateway is the host, that is running the instances.
With ipv6 you would still not want a single host as gateway, so it seems you may be wrong or I may be lol. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:16 AM, Martinx - ジェームズ <thiagocmarti...@gmail.com>wrote: > Also, > > There is no need for "multihost = true" when using with IPv6... > > Why? > > Because "Multihost = true" turns on a NAT table (MASQUERADE I think) > within each compute node... Effectively hiding its running Instances and > acting as its default gateway but... Let IPv6 do the job without NAT... =P > > NOTE: Please, let me know if my above statement is wrong... I like to hear > criticism, I have no problem with that... > > Long life to OpenStack! > > Cheers! > Thiago > > > On 8 August 2013 16:51, Martinx - ジェームズ <thiagocmarti...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Guys, >> >> I'm designing my Cloud Computing still based on IPv4 but, I already >> started to think on IPv6 every single day... >> >> So, I'm figuring out that, when we have OpenStack working 100% with IPv6, >> we'll not need the following features: >> >> >> With IPv6, there is no need for: >> >> >> 1- NAT; >> >> 2- Floating IPs; >> >> 3- Use of Namespaces. >> >> >> But, why?! >> >> >> 1- There is no NAT for IPv6 (since NAT was a hack / workaround to deal >> with IPv4 exhaustion); Here in Brazil, we call NAT tables a huge >> "gambiarra" (the worse thing of the old IPv4 networks, which the IPv6 >> gracefully addresses it)... >> >> 2- Floating IPs are also NAT rules, no need for it; >> >> 3- Namespaces are used mostly to allow tenants to share the same IPv4 >> invalid subnet, for example, tenant A have 192.168.1.0/24 and also >> tenant B can have another 192.168.1.0/24 that will not conflict at the >> Network Node, because of the Namespaces there but, who needs this when >> dealing only with IPv6?! No one. >> >> >> Look, this OpenStack approach of presenting Linux Namespaces as tenant >> routers, is AWESOME! It is a pretty good idea! I really like it but, it >> will be entirely optional when using with IPv6, since the Global Public >> IPv6 will never enter in conflict with each other "by its very nature"... >> >> I'm here saying this because I really want to see a single OpenStack >> option to completely disable "Floating IPs and NAT rules", like "Namespaces >> options" have its "allow_overlapping_ips = False / use_namespaces = False". >> >> I think that OpenStack should provides something like this: >> "use_floating_ips = False / use_nat = False" to disable it. >> >> What do you guys think?! >> >> Cheers! >> Thiago >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ 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
