You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@cloudstack.apache.org by Carlos Reategui <ca...@reategui.com> on 2013/08/15 02:05:05 UTC
vSwitch vs bridge
Hi All,
The Cloudstack docs for XenServer say to use bridge networking when using
basic networking. Is this still the case with CS 4.1 and XS 6.1?
XS 6.1 introduced LACP which I would prefer to use but it is not supported
with bridge networking. I think my storage network would benefit from it.
If still required for basic networking then can someone walk me through how
to setup an advanced network that behaves like a basic, shared, no security
group network. I have 8 nics in 2 bonds (4 nics each -- one labeled
storage for NFS SR and the other cloud-public for management/guest
traffic). The hosts and the guests are in 192.168.1.0/24 and the storage
network is isolated on its own in a 192.168.200.0/24.
thanks,
Carlos
Re: vSwitch vs bridge
Posted by Carlos Reategui <ca...@reategui.com>.
I think it will be easier for me to stick with basic network.
Can I use vSwitch with basic network if I do not use security groups?
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Carlos Reategui <ca...@reategui.com>wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Chiradeep Vittal <
> Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>> The system vms need a public network, so at least 2 "public" Ips.
>>
>
> Can I just allocate a range of IPs within my existing 192.168.1.0/24 for
> this and tag it with the public VLAN id? or do I need to create a new
> virtual subnet?
>
>
>>
>> On 8/15/13 11:14 AM, "Carlos Reategui" <ca...@reategui.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Thanks for the response.
>> >
>> >I am a complete novice when it comes to VLANs so hopefully I can pull
>> this
>> >off. My hosts/guest physical network is using a Dell PowerConnect 2848
>> >which says it supports VLAN tags so I'll look at its docs to see what I
>> >need to do to configure it.
>> >
>> >You mention that the guest and public traffic must be tagged. Since I
>> >will
>> >not be using public IPs (or the notion of a public network) can I skip
>> the
>> >public network or do I need to define it? My 192.168.1.0/24 network is
>> >already NATed out if the guests need outbound access to the internet.
>> > Inbound internet traffic is not available.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Venkata SwamyBabu Budumuru <
>> >venkataswamybabu.budumuru@citrix.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Currently CS supports security groups functionality only with bridge
>> >> networking mode.
>> >>
>> >> If you are ok with out security groups then with advanced shared you
>> >>will
>> >> be able to achieve what you are looking for. Advanced shared expects
>> >> tagged VLANs for guest and public traffic types.
>> >>
>> >> On 15/08/13 5:35 AM, "Carlos Reategui" <ca...@reategui.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Hi All,
>> >> >
>> >> >The Cloudstack docs for XenServer say to use bridge networking when
>> >>using
>> >> >basic networking. Is this still the case with CS 4.1 and XS 6.1?
>> >> >
>> >> >XS 6.1 introduced LACP which I would prefer to use but it is not
>> >>supported
>> >> >with bridge networking. I think my storage network would benefit from
>> >>it.
>> >> >
>> >> >If still required for basic networking then can someone walk me
>> through
>> >> >how
>> >> >to setup an advanced network that behaves like a basic, shared, no
>> >> >security
>> >> >group network. I have 8 nics in 2 bonds (4 nics each -- one labeled
>> >> >storage for NFS SR and the other cloud-public for management/guest
>> >> >traffic). The hosts and the guests are in 192.168.1.0/24 and the
>> >>storage
>> >> >network is isolated on its own in a 192.168.200.0/24.
>> >> >
>> >> >thanks,
>> >> >Carlos
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>
Re: vSwitch vs bridge
Posted by Carlos Reategui <ca...@reategui.com>.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Chiradeep Vittal <
Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
> The system vms need a public network, so at least 2 "public" Ips.
>
Can I just allocate a range of IPs within my existing 192.168.1.0/24 for
this and tag it with the public VLAN id? or do I need to create a new
virtual subnet?
>
> On 8/15/13 11:14 AM, "Carlos Reategui" <ca...@reategui.com> wrote:
>
> >Thanks for the response.
> >
> >I am a complete novice when it comes to VLANs so hopefully I can pull this
> >off. My hosts/guest physical network is using a Dell PowerConnect 2848
> >which says it supports VLAN tags so I'll look at its docs to see what I
> >need to do to configure it.
> >
> >You mention that the guest and public traffic must be tagged. Since I
> >will
> >not be using public IPs (or the notion of a public network) can I skip the
> >public network or do I need to define it? My 192.168.1.0/24 network is
> >already NATed out if the guests need outbound access to the internet.
> > Inbound internet traffic is not available.
> >
> >
> >
> >On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Venkata SwamyBabu Budumuru <
> >venkataswamybabu.budumuru@citrix.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Currently CS supports security groups functionality only with bridge
> >> networking mode.
> >>
> >> If you are ok with out security groups then with advanced shared you
> >>will
> >> be able to achieve what you are looking for. Advanced shared expects
> >> tagged VLANs for guest and public traffic types.
> >>
> >> On 15/08/13 5:35 AM, "Carlos Reategui" <ca...@reategui.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Hi All,
> >> >
> >> >The Cloudstack docs for XenServer say to use bridge networking when
> >>using
> >> >basic networking. Is this still the case with CS 4.1 and XS 6.1?
> >> >
> >> >XS 6.1 introduced LACP which I would prefer to use but it is not
> >>supported
> >> >with bridge networking. I think my storage network would benefit from
> >>it.
> >> >
> >> >If still required for basic networking then can someone walk me through
> >> >how
> >> >to setup an advanced network that behaves like a basic, shared, no
> >> >security
> >> >group network. I have 8 nics in 2 bonds (4 nics each -- one labeled
> >> >storage for NFS SR and the other cloud-public for management/guest
> >> >traffic). The hosts and the guests are in 192.168.1.0/24 and the
> >>storage
> >> >network is isolated on its own in a 192.168.200.0/24.
> >> >
> >> >thanks,
> >> >Carlos
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: vSwitch vs bridge
Posted by Chiradeep Vittal <Ch...@citrix.com>.
The system vms need a public network, so at least 2 "public" Ips.
On 8/15/13 11:14 AM, "Carlos Reategui" <ca...@reategui.com> wrote:
>Thanks for the response.
>
>I am a complete novice when it comes to VLANs so hopefully I can pull this
>off. My hosts/guest physical network is using a Dell PowerConnect 2848
>which says it supports VLAN tags so I'll look at its docs to see what I
>need to do to configure it.
>
>You mention that the guest and public traffic must be tagged. Since I
>will
>not be using public IPs (or the notion of a public network) can I skip the
>public network or do I need to define it? My 192.168.1.0/24 network is
>already NATed out if the guests need outbound access to the internet.
> Inbound internet traffic is not available.
>
>
>
>On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Venkata SwamyBabu Budumuru <
>venkataswamybabu.budumuru@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>> Currently CS supports security groups functionality only with bridge
>> networking mode.
>>
>> If you are ok with out security groups then with advanced shared you
>>will
>> be able to achieve what you are looking for. Advanced shared expects
>> tagged VLANs for guest and public traffic types.
>>
>> On 15/08/13 5:35 AM, "Carlos Reategui" <ca...@reategui.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi All,
>> >
>> >The Cloudstack docs for XenServer say to use bridge networking when
>>using
>> >basic networking. Is this still the case with CS 4.1 and XS 6.1?
>> >
>> >XS 6.1 introduced LACP which I would prefer to use but it is not
>>supported
>> >with bridge networking. I think my storage network would benefit from
>>it.
>> >
>> >If still required for basic networking then can someone walk me through
>> >how
>> >to setup an advanced network that behaves like a basic, shared, no
>> >security
>> >group network. I have 8 nics in 2 bonds (4 nics each -- one labeled
>> >storage for NFS SR and the other cloud-public for management/guest
>> >traffic). The hosts and the guests are in 192.168.1.0/24 and the
>>storage
>> >network is isolated on its own in a 192.168.200.0/24.
>> >
>> >thanks,
>> >Carlos
>>
>>
Re: vSwitch vs bridge
Posted by Carlos Reategui <ca...@reategui.com>.
Thanks for the response.
I am a complete novice when it comes to VLANs so hopefully I can pull this
off. My hosts/guest physical network is using a Dell PowerConnect 2848
which says it supports VLAN tags so I'll look at its docs to see what I
need to do to configure it.
You mention that the guest and public traffic must be tagged. Since I will
not be using public IPs (or the notion of a public network) can I skip the
public network or do I need to define it? My 192.168.1.0/24 network is
already NATed out if the guests need outbound access to the internet.
Inbound internet traffic is not available.
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Venkata SwamyBabu Budumuru <
venkataswamybabu.budumuru@citrix.com> wrote:
> Currently CS supports security groups functionality only with bridge
> networking mode.
>
> If you are ok with out security groups then with advanced shared you will
> be able to achieve what you are looking for. Advanced shared expects
> tagged VLANs for guest and public traffic types.
>
> On 15/08/13 5:35 AM, "Carlos Reategui" <ca...@reategui.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi All,
> >
> >The Cloudstack docs for XenServer say to use bridge networking when using
> >basic networking. Is this still the case with CS 4.1 and XS 6.1?
> >
> >XS 6.1 introduced LACP which I would prefer to use but it is not supported
> >with bridge networking. I think my storage network would benefit from it.
> >
> >If still required for basic networking then can someone walk me through
> >how
> >to setup an advanced network that behaves like a basic, shared, no
> >security
> >group network. I have 8 nics in 2 bonds (4 nics each -- one labeled
> >storage for NFS SR and the other cloud-public for management/guest
> >traffic). The hosts and the guests are in 192.168.1.0/24 and the storage
> >network is isolated on its own in a 192.168.200.0/24.
> >
> >thanks,
> >Carlos
>
>
Re: vSwitch vs bridge
Posted by Venkata SwamyBabu Budumuru <ve...@citrix.com>.
Currently CS supports security groups functionality only with bridge
networking mode.
If you are ok with out security groups then with advanced shared you will
be able to achieve what you are looking for. Advanced shared expects
tagged VLANs for guest and public traffic types.
On 15/08/13 5:35 AM, "Carlos Reategui" <ca...@reategui.com> wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>The Cloudstack docs for XenServer say to use bridge networking when using
>basic networking. Is this still the case with CS 4.1 and XS 6.1?
>
>XS 6.1 introduced LACP which I would prefer to use but it is not supported
>with bridge networking. I think my storage network would benefit from it.
>
>If still required for basic networking then can someone walk me through
>how
>to setup an advanced network that behaves like a basic, shared, no
>security
>group network. I have 8 nics in 2 bonds (4 nics each -- one labeled
>storage for NFS SR and the other cloud-public for management/guest
>traffic). The hosts and the guests are in 192.168.1.0/24 and the storage
>network is isolated on its own in a 192.168.200.0/24.
>
>thanks,
>Carlos