Hey guys! I just find out a pretty good document about using IPv6 with OpenStack Grizzly, take a look!
http://www.nephos6.com/pdf/OpenStack-on-IPv6.pdf http://www.nephos6.com/insights/whitepapers/ BTW, nice talk here! Tks! Cheers! Thiago On 13 August 2013 01:33, Sam Stoelinga <sammiest...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
