You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl> on 2018/06/19 20:57:55 UTC
[DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
Hi,
We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking and recently
started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN isolation and a
shared network.
This provides (from what we can see) all the features Basic Networking
provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData while the Hypervisor
does the Security Grouping.
That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.
Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users as you can't
simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we found out that it's
possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't guarantee it works in
every use-case. So doing this automatically during a upgrade would be
difficult.
To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic Networking code for ever
I would like to propose and discuss the matter of preventing the
creation of new Basic Networking zones.
In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else statements in the
code and it would make testing also easier as we have few things to test.
Most of the development also seems to go in the Advanced Networking
direction.
We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced Shared Networks and
that's progressing very good as well.
Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where we simplify the
networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic Networking while keeping
it alive for existing users?
Wido
Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
Please propose a new network documentation page as part of this discussion.
If it makes it more palatable to developers, we could rename the
documentation to "Use Cases".
That would make it easier to discuss the real impact on users of what is
being proposed.
The current network documentation is one of the biggest barriers to
entry and generates a lot of the traffic in the forum.
Ron
On 06/07/2018 4:50 AM, Paul Angus wrote:
> Sorry for being late to the party.
>
> 'in theory' couldn't we do away with the idea that 'advanced networking with security groups' is a type of zone and just allow the use of security groups in any network, instead of making people 'choose' up front.
> I believe AWS allows the use of security groups in VPCs. It seems a little 'belt and braces', but I know of users who have looked to do it.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Paul Angus
>
> paul.angus@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>
> Sent: 19 June 2018 21:58
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
>
> Hi,
>
> We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking and recently started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN isolation and a shared network.
>
> This provides (from what we can see) all the features Basic Networking provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData while the Hypervisor does the Security Grouping.
>
> That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.
>
> Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users as you can't simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we found out that it's possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't guarantee it works in every use-case. So doing this automatically during a upgrade would be difficult.
>
> To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic Networking code for ever I would like to propose and discuss the matter of preventing the creation of new Basic Networking zones.
>
> In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else statements in the code and it would make testing also easier as we have few things to test.
>
> Most of the development also seems to go in the Advanced Networking direction.
>
> We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced Shared Networks and that's progressing very good as well.
>
> Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where we simplify the networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic Networking while keeping it alive for existing users?
>
> Wido
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
RE: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
Posted by Paul Angus <pa...@shapeblue.com>.
Sorry for being late to the party.
'in theory' couldn't we do away with the idea that 'advanced networking with security groups' is a type of zone and just allow the use of security groups in any network, instead of making people 'choose' up front.
I believe AWS allows the use of security groups in VPCs. It seems a little 'belt and braces', but I know of users who have looked to do it.
Kind regards,
Paul Angus
paul.angus@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
-----Original Message-----
From: Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>
Sent: 19 June 2018 21:58
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
Hi,
We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking and recently started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN isolation and a shared network.
This provides (from what we can see) all the features Basic Networking provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData while the Hypervisor does the Security Grouping.
That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.
Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users as you can't simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we found out that it's possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't guarantee it works in every use-case. So doing this automatically during a upgrade would be difficult.
To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic Networking code for ever I would like to propose and discuss the matter of preventing the creation of new Basic Networking zones.
In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else statements in the code and it would make testing also easier as we have few things to test.
Most of the development also seems to go in the Advanced Networking direction.
We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced Shared Networks and that's progressing very good as well.
Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where we simplify the networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic Networking while keeping it alive for existing users?
Wido
Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
Posted by Rafael Weingärtner <ra...@gmail.com>.
+1
I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to the UI though.
So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.
We all can help you with the UI. It is a little complicated at the
beginning because it is a JavaScript that generates HTML code. However, it
is doable.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike <Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com
> wrote:
> If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good time to bump
> CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
>
> > On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> >> I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even though I myself
> >> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to give a simple
> start
> >> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page wizard for
> creating
> >> a shared network in advanced zone with security groups and userdata,
> great.
> >
> > That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter of using VLAN
> > isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because that's basically
> > what Basic Networking does.
> >
> > It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM).
> >
> > If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri in Advanced Networking
> > you get exactly the same result.
> >
> >> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple by throwing at
> as
> >> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:
> >
> > I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to the UI though.
> > So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.
> >
> > Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements at the right
> > location and you're done.
> >
> > Wido
> >
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking and recently
> >>> started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN isolation and a
> >>> shared network.
> >>>
> >>> This provides (from what we can see) all the features Basic Networking
> >>> provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData while the Hypervisor
> >>> does the Security Grouping.
> >>>
> >>> That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.
> >>>
> >>> Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users as you can't
> >>> simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we found out that it's
> >>> possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't guarantee it works in
> >>> every use-case. So doing this automatically during a upgrade would be
> >>> difficult.
> >>>
> >>> To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic Networking code for
> ever
> >>> I would like to propose and discuss the matter of preventing the
> >>> creation of new Basic Networking zones.
> >>>
> >>> In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else statements in the
> >>> code and it would make testing also easier as we have few things to
> test.
> >>>
> >>> Most of the development also seems to go in the Advanced Networking
> >>> direction.
> >>>
> >>> We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced Shared Networks and
> >>> that's progressing very good as well.
> >>>
> >>> Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where we simplify the
> >>> networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic Networking while keeping
> >>> it alive for existing users?
> >>>
> >>> Wido
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
--
Rafael Weingärtner
Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
Posted by Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>.
On 06/20/2018 08:42 PM, ilya musayev wrote:
> I think the simplicity of Basic Zone was - you can get away with 1 VLAN
> for everything (great for POC setup) where as Advanced Shared with VLAN
> isolation requires several VLANs to get going.
>
Does it? I have Advanced Networking running with just vlan://untagged as
a broadcast domain.
Using VLAN 0 would be exactly the same since that's the default VLAN.
> How would we cover this use case?
>
By using 'untagged' as the VLAN number, don't we?
Wido
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:34 AM Tutkowski, Mike
> <Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com <ma...@netapp.com>> wrote:
>
> Also, yes, I agree with the list you provided, Wido. We might have
> to break “other fancy stuff” into more detail, though. ;)
>
> On 6/20/18, 12:32 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com
> <ma...@netapp.com>> wrote:
>
> Sorry, Wido :) I missed that part.
>
> On 6/20/18, 5:03 AM, "Wido den Hollander" <wido@widodh.nl
> <ma...@widodh.nl>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 06/20/2018 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
> > If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good
> time to bump CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
> >
>
> That's what I said in my e-mail :-) But yes, I agree with
> you, this
> might be a good time to bump it to 5.0
>
> With that we would:
>
> - Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
> - Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
> - Java 9?
> - Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
> - Other fancy stuff?
> - Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly
>
> How would that sound?
>
> Wido
>
> >> On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Wido den Hollander
> <wido@widodh.nl <ma...@widodh.nl>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> >>> I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even
> though I myself
> >>> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to
> give a simple start
> >>> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page
> wizard for creating
> >>> a shared network in advanced zone with security groups
> and userdata, great.
> >>
> >> That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter of
> using VLAN
> >> isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because
> that's basically
> >> what Basic Networking does.
> >>
> >> It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM).
> >>
> >> If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri in
> Advanced Networking
> >> you get exactly the same result.
> >>
> >>> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple
> by throwing at as
> >>> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:
> >>
> >> I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to
> the UI though.
> >> So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.
> >>
> >> Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements
> at the right
> >> location and you're done.
> >>
> >> Wido
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander
> <wido@widodh.nl <ma...@widodh.nl>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking
> and recently
> >>>> started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN
> isolation and a
> >>>> shared network.
> >>>>
> >>>> This provides (from what we can see) all the features
> Basic Networking
> >>>> provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData
> while the Hypervisor
> >>>> does the Security Grouping.
> >>>>
> >>>> That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.
> >>>>
> >>>> Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users
> as you can't
> >>>> simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we
> found out that it's
> >>>> possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't
> guarantee it works in
> >>>> every use-case. So doing this automatically during a
> upgrade would be
> >>>> difficult.
> >>>>
> >>>> To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic
> Networking code for ever
> >>>> I would like to propose and discuss the matter of
> preventing the
> >>>> creation of new Basic Networking zones.
> >>>>
> >>>> In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else
> statements in the
> >>>> code and it would make testing also easier as we have
> few things to test.
> >>>>
> >>>> Most of the development also seems to go in the
> Advanced Networking
> >>>> direction.
> >>>>
> >>>> We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced
> Shared Networks and
> >>>> that's progressing very good as well.
> >>>>
> >>>> Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where
> we simplify the
> >>>> networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic
> Networking while keeping
> >>>> it alive for existing users?
> >>>>
> >>>> Wido
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
Posted by Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>.
On 06/22/2018 08:04 AM, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> Good idea, but a lot of things supported in advanced zone with KVM may not be supported in case of VMware, XenServer etc. The larger refactoring will need to account for how in various places checks exists how behaviors are enforced when the zone is basic or not, and what kind of impact will it have on non-KVM users using basic zone (if any) along with having an upgrade path for such users.
>
I have no experience with VMWare nor XenServer, but doesn't Advanced
Networking with a Shared VLAN work the same on those?
>
> If the overall functionality is retained and a seamless upgrade path can be created a new major release 5.0 is not be necessary (that should be a different thread with inputs from various stakeholders on various topics).
>
A upgrade will be very difficult to convert a Basic Network to Advanced
as bridges on the HV need to be changed and this can vary per deployment.
>
> Wrt support of the next Java version, we'll need to consider the distro provided Java version for a long time Java8 will be supported [1] but newer versions Java 9/10 onwards are short-term non-LTS releases, debian testing/next don't even have openjdk-9/10 packages yet.
>
>
> [1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/eol-135779.html
>
>
> - Rohit
>
> <https://cloudstack.apache.org>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 8:26:40 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
>
> For now I've created a Pull Request so we can have a discussion about it
> there: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2720
>
> Wido
>
> On 06/21/2018 02:34 PM, Gabriel Beims Bräscher wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> We have an empty page regarding 5.0 [1] in the Design documents section
>> [2]. It might be a good spot to sort out CloudStack 5.0 plans.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/5.0+Design+Documents
>> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Design
>>
>> 2018-06-21 5:58 GMT-03:00 Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> well, that one is a good one to update, but there was a dedicated 5.0 page
>>> at some time. I think we can just use this from here on in and merge
>>> anything else in it when we find it ;)
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Rafael Weingärtner <
>>> rafaelweingartner@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This one [1]?
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Roadmap
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Wido, there used to be a page on cwiki with plans for 5.0, I can not
>>> find
>>>>> it anymore but this should be added to it.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 6:42 PM, ilya musayev <
>>>>> ilya.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the simplicity of Basic Zone was - you can get away with 1
>>> VLAN
>>>>>> for everything (great for POC setup) where as Advanced Shared with
>>> VLAN
>>>>>> isolation requires several VLANs to get going.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How would we cover this use case?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:34 AM Tutkowski, Mike <
>>>>>> Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, yes, I agree with the list you provided, Wido. We might have
>>> to
>>>>>>> break “other fancy stuff” into more detail, though. ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/20/18, 12:32 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, Wido :) I missed that part.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/20/18, 5:03 AM, "Wido den Hollander" <wi...@widodh.nl>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 06/20/2018 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
>>>>>>> > If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good
>>> time
>>>> to
>>>>>>> bump CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's what I said in my e-mail :-) But yes, I agree with
>>> you,
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> might be a good time to bump it to 5.0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With that we would:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
>>>>>>> - Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
>>>>>>> - Java 9?
>>>>>>> - Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
>>>>>>> - Other fancy stuff?
>>>>>>> - Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How would that sound?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wido
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >> On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Wido den Hollander <
>>>>>>> wido@widodh.nl> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>> On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>>>>>>> >>> I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even
>>>>>>> though I myself
>>>>>>> >>> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to
>>>> give a
>>>>>>> simple start
>>>>>>> >>> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page
>>>>>>> wizard for creating
>>>>>>> >>> a shared network in advanced zone with security groups
>>> and
>>>>>>> userdata, great.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter of
>>> using
>>>>>>> VLAN
>>>>>>> >> isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because
>>>> that's
>>>>>>> basically
>>>>>>> >> what Basic Networking does.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM).
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri in
>>>> Advanced
>>>>>>> Networking
>>>>>>> >> you get exactly the same result.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple
>>>> by
>>>>>>> throwing at as
>>>>>>> >>> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to
>>> the
>>>>> UI
>>>>>>> though.
>>>>>>> >> So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements
>>>> at
>>>>>>> the right
>>>>>>> >> location and you're done.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Wido
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander <
>>>>>>> wido@widodh.nl> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking
>>>> and
>>>>>>> recently
>>>>>>> >>>> started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN
>>>>> isolation
>>>>>>> and a
>>>>>>> >>>> shared network.
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> This provides (from what we can see) all the features
>>>> Basic
>>>>>>> Networking
>>>>>>> >>>> provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData
>>> while
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> Hypervisor
>>>>>>> >>>> does the Security Grouping.
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users
>>> as
>>>>>>> you can't
>>>>>>> >>>> simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we
>>> found
>>>>>>> out that it's
>>>>>>> >>>> possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't
>>>> guarantee
>>>>>>> it works in
>>>>>>> >>>> every use-case. So doing this automatically during a
>>>>> upgrade
>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>> >>>> difficult.
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic
>>>> Networking
>>>>>>> code for ever
>>>>>>> >>>> I would like to propose and discuss the matter of
>>>>> preventing
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> >>>> creation of new Basic Networking zones.
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else
>>>>>>> statements in the
>>>>>>> >>>> code and it would make testing also easier as we have
>>> few
>>>>>>> things to test.
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> Most of the development also seems to go in the
>>> Advanced
>>>>>>> Networking
>>>>>>> >>>> direction.
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced
>>> Shared
>>>>>>> Networks and
>>>>>>> >>>> that's progressing very good as well.
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where
>>> we
>>>>>>> simplify the
>>>>>>> >>>> networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic
>>> Networking
>>>>>>> while keeping
>>>>>>> >>>> it alive for existing users?
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> Wido
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Daan
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Rafael Weingärtner
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daan
>>>
>>
>
> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>.
Good idea, but a lot of things supported in advanced zone with KVM may not be supported in case of VMware, XenServer etc. The larger refactoring will need to account for how in various places checks exists how behaviors are enforced when the zone is basic or not, and what kind of impact will it have on non-KVM users using basic zone (if any) along with having an upgrade path for such users.
If the overall functionality is retained and a seamless upgrade path can be created a new major release 5.0 is not be necessary (that should be a different thread with inputs from various stakeholders on various topics).
Wrt support of the next Java version, we'll need to consider the distro provided Java version for a long time Java8 will be supported [1] but newer versions Java 9/10 onwards are short-term non-LTS releases, debian testing/next don't even have openjdk-9/10 packages yet.
[1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/eol-135779.html
- Rohit
<https://cloudstack.apache.org>
________________________________
From: Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 8:26:40 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
For now I've created a Pull Request so we can have a discussion about it
there: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2720
Wido
On 06/21/2018 02:34 PM, Gabriel Beims Bräscher wrote:
> +1
>
> We have an empty page regarding 5.0 [1] in the Design documents section
> [2]. It might be a good spot to sort out CloudStack 5.0 plans.
>
> [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/5.0+Design+Documents
> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Design
>
> 2018-06-21 5:58 GMT-03:00 Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>:
>
>> well, that one is a good one to update, but there was a dedicated 5.0 page
>> at some time. I think we can just use this from here on in and merge
>> anything else in it when we find it ;)
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Rafael Weingärtner <
>> rafaelweingartner@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This one [1]?
>>>
>>> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Roadmap
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wido, there used to be a page on cwiki with plans for 5.0, I can not
>> find
>>>> it anymore but this should be added to it.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 6:42 PM, ilya musayev <
>>>> ilya.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think the simplicity of Basic Zone was - you can get away with 1
>> VLAN
>>>>> for everything (great for POC setup) where as Advanced Shared with
>> VLAN
>>>>> isolation requires several VLANs to get going.
>>>>>
>>>>> How would we cover this use case?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:34 AM Tutkowski, Mike <
>>>>> Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, yes, I agree with the list you provided, Wido. We might have
>> to
>>>>>> break “other fancy stuff” into more detail, though. ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/20/18, 12:32 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, Wido :) I missed that part.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/20/18, 5:03 AM, "Wido den Hollander" <wi...@widodh.nl>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/20/2018 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
>>>>>> > If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good
>> time
>>> to
>>>>>> bump CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what I said in my e-mail :-) But yes, I agree with
>> you,
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> might be a good time to bump it to 5.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With that we would:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
>>>>>> - Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
>>>>>> - Java 9?
>>>>>> - Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
>>>>>> - Other fancy stuff?
>>>>>> - Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How would that sound?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wido
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Wido den Hollander <
>>>>>> wido@widodh.nl> wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>> On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>>>>>> >>> I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even
>>>>>> though I myself
>>>>>> >>> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to
>>> give a
>>>>>> simple start
>>>>>> >>> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page
>>>>>> wizard for creating
>>>>>> >>> a shared network in advanced zone with security groups
>> and
>>>>>> userdata, great.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter of
>> using
>>>>>> VLAN
>>>>>> >> isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because
>>> that's
>>>>>> basically
>>>>>> >> what Basic Networking does.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM).
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri in
>>> Advanced
>>>>>> Networking
>>>>>> >> you get exactly the same result.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple
>>> by
>>>>>> throwing at as
>>>>>> >>> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to
>> the
>>>> UI
>>>>>> though.
>>>>>> >> So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements
>>> at
>>>>>> the right
>>>>>> >> location and you're done.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Wido
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander <
>>>>>> wido@widodh.nl> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Hi,
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking
>>> and
>>>>>> recently
>>>>>> >>>> started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN
>>>> isolation
>>>>>> and a
>>>>>> >>>> shared network.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> This provides (from what we can see) all the features
>>> Basic
>>>>>> Networking
>>>>>> >>>> provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData
>> while
>>>> the
>>>>>> Hypervisor
>>>>>> >>>> does the Security Grouping.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users
>> as
>>>>>> you can't
>>>>>> >>>> simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we
>> found
>>>>>> out that it's
>>>>>> >>>> possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't
>>> guarantee
>>>>>> it works in
>>>>>> >>>> every use-case. So doing this automatically during a
>>>> upgrade
>>>>>> would be
>>>>>> >>>> difficult.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic
>>> Networking
>>>>>> code for ever
>>>>>> >>>> I would like to propose and discuss the matter of
>>>> preventing
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> >>>> creation of new Basic Networking zones.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else
>>>>>> statements in the
>>>>>> >>>> code and it would make testing also easier as we have
>> few
>>>>>> things to test.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Most of the development also seems to go in the
>> Advanced
>>>>>> Networking
>>>>>> >>>> direction.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced
>> Shared
>>>>>> Networks and
>>>>>> >>>> that's progressing very good as well.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where
>> we
>>>>>> simplify the
>>>>>> >>>> networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic
>> Networking
>>>>>> while keeping
>>>>>> >>>> it alive for existing users?
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Wido
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Daan
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rafael Weingärtner
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daan
>>
>
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
Posted by Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>.
For now I've created a Pull Request so we can have a discussion about it
there: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2720
Wido
On 06/21/2018 02:34 PM, Gabriel Beims Bräscher wrote:
> +1
>
> We have an empty page regarding 5.0 [1] in the Design documents section
> [2]. It might be a good spot to sort out CloudStack 5.0 plans.
>
> [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/5.0+Design+Documents
> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Design
>
> 2018-06-21 5:58 GMT-03:00 Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>:
>
>> well, that one is a good one to update, but there was a dedicated 5.0 page
>> at some time. I think we can just use this from here on in and merge
>> anything else in it when we find it ;)
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Rafael Weingärtner <
>> rafaelweingartner@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This one [1]?
>>>
>>> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Roadmap
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wido, there used to be a page on cwiki with plans for 5.0, I can not
>> find
>>>> it anymore but this should be added to it.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 6:42 PM, ilya musayev <
>>>> ilya.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think the simplicity of Basic Zone was - you can get away with 1
>> VLAN
>>>>> for everything (great for POC setup) where as Advanced Shared with
>> VLAN
>>>>> isolation requires several VLANs to get going.
>>>>>
>>>>> How would we cover this use case?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:34 AM Tutkowski, Mike <
>>>>> Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, yes, I agree with the list you provided, Wido. We might have
>> to
>>>>>> break “other fancy stuff” into more detail, though. ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/20/18, 12:32 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, Wido :) I missed that part.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/20/18, 5:03 AM, "Wido den Hollander" <wi...@widodh.nl>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/20/2018 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
>>>>>> > If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good
>> time
>>> to
>>>>>> bump CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what I said in my e-mail :-) But yes, I agree with
>> you,
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> might be a good time to bump it to 5.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With that we would:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
>>>>>> - Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
>>>>>> - Java 9?
>>>>>> - Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
>>>>>> - Other fancy stuff?
>>>>>> - Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How would that sound?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wido
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Wido den Hollander <
>>>>>> wido@widodh.nl> wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>> On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>>>>>> >>> I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even
>>>>>> though I myself
>>>>>> >>> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to
>>> give a
>>>>>> simple start
>>>>>> >>> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page
>>>>>> wizard for creating
>>>>>> >>> a shared network in advanced zone with security groups
>> and
>>>>>> userdata, great.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter of
>> using
>>>>>> VLAN
>>>>>> >> isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because
>>> that's
>>>>>> basically
>>>>>> >> what Basic Networking does.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM).
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri in
>>> Advanced
>>>>>> Networking
>>>>>> >> you get exactly the same result.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple
>>> by
>>>>>> throwing at as
>>>>>> >>> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to
>> the
>>>> UI
>>>>>> though.
>>>>>> >> So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements
>>> at
>>>>>> the right
>>>>>> >> location and you're done.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Wido
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander <
>>>>>> wido@widodh.nl> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Hi,
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking
>>> and
>>>>>> recently
>>>>>> >>>> started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN
>>>> isolation
>>>>>> and a
>>>>>> >>>> shared network.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> This provides (from what we can see) all the features
>>> Basic
>>>>>> Networking
>>>>>> >>>> provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData
>> while
>>>> the
>>>>>> Hypervisor
>>>>>> >>>> does the Security Grouping.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users
>> as
>>>>>> you can't
>>>>>> >>>> simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we
>> found
>>>>>> out that it's
>>>>>> >>>> possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't
>>> guarantee
>>>>>> it works in
>>>>>> >>>> every use-case. So doing this automatically during a
>>>> upgrade
>>>>>> would be
>>>>>> >>>> difficult.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic
>>> Networking
>>>>>> code for ever
>>>>>> >>>> I would like to propose and discuss the matter of
>>>> preventing
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> >>>> creation of new Basic Networking zones.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else
>>>>>> statements in the
>>>>>> >>>> code and it would make testing also easier as we have
>> few
>>>>>> things to test.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Most of the development also seems to go in the
>> Advanced
>>>>>> Networking
>>>>>> >>>> direction.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced
>> Shared
>>>>>> Networks and
>>>>>> >>>> that's progressing very good as well.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where
>> we
>>>>>> simplify the
>>>>>> >>>> networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic
>> Networking
>>>>>> while keeping
>>>>>> >>>> it alive for existing users?
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Wido
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Daan
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rafael Weingärtner
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daan
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
Posted by Gabriel Beims Bräscher <ga...@gmail.com>.
+1
We have an empty page regarding 5.0 [1] in the Design documents section
[2]. It might be a good spot to sort out CloudStack 5.0 plans.
[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/5.0+Design+Documents
[2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Design
2018-06-21 5:58 GMT-03:00 Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>:
> well, that one is a good one to update, but there was a dedicated 5.0 page
> at some time. I think we can just use this from here on in and merge
> anything else in it when we find it ;)
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Rafael Weingärtner <
> rafaelweingartner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This one [1]?
> >
> > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Roadmap
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Wido, there used to be a page on cwiki with plans for 5.0, I can not
> find
> > > it anymore but this should be added to it.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 6:42 PM, ilya musayev <
> > > ilya.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think the simplicity of Basic Zone was - you can get away with 1
> VLAN
> > > > for everything (great for POC setup) where as Advanced Shared with
> VLAN
> > > > isolation requires several VLANs to get going.
> > > >
> > > > How would we cover this use case?
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:34 AM Tutkowski, Mike <
> > > > Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Also, yes, I agree with the list you provided, Wido. We might have
> to
> > > >> break “other fancy stuff” into more detail, though. ;)
> > > >>
> > > >> On 6/20/18, 12:32 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Sorry, Wido :) I missed that part.
> > > >>
> > > >> On 6/20/18, 5:03 AM, "Wido den Hollander" <wi...@widodh.nl>
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On 06/20/2018 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
> > > >> > If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good
> time
> > to
> > > >> bump CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> That's what I said in my e-mail :-) But yes, I agree with
> you,
> > > >> this
> > > >> might be a good time to bump it to 5.0
> > > >>
> > > >> With that we would:
> > > >>
> > > >> - Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
> > > >> - Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
> > > >> - Java 9?
> > > >> - Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
> > > >> - Other fancy stuff?
> > > >> - Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly
> > > >>
> > > >> How would that sound?
> > > >>
> > > >> Wido
> > > >>
> > > >> >> On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Wido den Hollander <
> > > >> wido@widodh.nl> wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>> On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> > > >> >>> I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even
> > > >> though I myself
> > > >> >>> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to
> > give a
> > > >> simple start
> > > >> >>> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page
> > > >> wizard for creating
> > > >> >>> a shared network in advanced zone with security groups
> and
> > > >> userdata, great.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter of
> using
> > > >> VLAN
> > > >> >> isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because
> > that's
> > > >> basically
> > > >> >> what Basic Networking does.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM).
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri in
> > Advanced
> > > >> Networking
> > > >> >> you get exactly the same result.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple
> > by
> > > >> throwing at as
> > > >> >>> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to
> the
> > > UI
> > > >> though.
> > > >> >> So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements
> > at
> > > >> the right
> > > >> >> location and you're done.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Wido
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander <
> > > >> wido@widodh.nl> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>> Hi,
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>> We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking
> > and
> > > >> recently
> > > >> >>>> started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN
> > > isolation
> > > >> and a
> > > >> >>>> shared network.
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>> This provides (from what we can see) all the features
> > Basic
> > > >> Networking
> > > >> >>>> provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData
> while
> > > the
> > > >> Hypervisor
> > > >> >>>> does the Security Grouping.
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>> That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>> Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users
> as
> > > >> you can't
> > > >> >>>> simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we
> found
> > > >> out that it's
> > > >> >>>> possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't
> > guarantee
> > > >> it works in
> > > >> >>>> every use-case. So doing this automatically during a
> > > upgrade
> > > >> would be
> > > >> >>>> difficult.
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>> To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic
> > Networking
> > > >> code for ever
> > > >> >>>> I would like to propose and discuss the matter of
> > > preventing
> > > >> the
> > > >> >>>> creation of new Basic Networking zones.
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>> In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else
> > > >> statements in the
> > > >> >>>> code and it would make testing also easier as we have
> few
> > > >> things to test.
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>> Most of the development also seems to go in the
> Advanced
> > > >> Networking
> > > >> >>>> direction.
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>> We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced
> Shared
> > > >> Networks and
> > > >> >>>> that's progressing very good as well.
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>> Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where
> we
> > > >> simplify the
> > > >> >>>> networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic
> Networking
> > > >> while keeping
> > > >> >>>> it alive for existing users?
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>> Wido
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Daan
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Rafael Weingärtner
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Daan
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
well, that one is a good one to update, but there was a dedicated 5.0 page
at some time. I think we can just use this from here on in and merge
anything else in it when we find it ;)
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Rafael Weingärtner <
rafaelweingartner@gmail.com> wrote:
> This one [1]?
>
> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Roadmap
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Wido, there used to be a page on cwiki with plans for 5.0, I can not find
> > it anymore but this should be added to it.
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 6:42 PM, ilya musayev <
> > ilya.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I think the simplicity of Basic Zone was - you can get away with 1 VLAN
> > > for everything (great for POC setup) where as Advanced Shared with VLAN
> > > isolation requires several VLANs to get going.
> > >
> > > How would we cover this use case?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:34 AM Tutkowski, Mike <
> > > Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Also, yes, I agree with the list you provided, Wido. We might have to
> > >> break “other fancy stuff” into more detail, though. ;)
> > >>
> > >> On 6/20/18, 12:32 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Sorry, Wido :) I missed that part.
> > >>
> > >> On 6/20/18, 5:03 AM, "Wido den Hollander" <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 06/20/2018 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
> > >> > If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good time
> to
> > >> bump CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> That's what I said in my e-mail :-) But yes, I agree with you,
> > >> this
> > >> might be a good time to bump it to 5.0
> > >>
> > >> With that we would:
> > >>
> > >> - Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
> > >> - Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
> > >> - Java 9?
> > >> - Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
> > >> - Other fancy stuff?
> > >> - Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly
> > >>
> > >> How would that sound?
> > >>
> > >> Wido
> > >>
> > >> >> On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Wido den Hollander <
> > >> wido@widodh.nl> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> > >> >>> I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even
> > >> though I myself
> > >> >>> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to
> give a
> > >> simple start
> > >> >>> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page
> > >> wizard for creating
> > >> >>> a shared network in advanced zone with security groups and
> > >> userdata, great.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter of using
> > >> VLAN
> > >> >> isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because
> that's
> > >> basically
> > >> >> what Basic Networking does.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM).
> > >> >>
> > >> >> If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri in
> Advanced
> > >> Networking
> > >> >> you get exactly the same result.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple
> by
> > >> throwing at as
> > >> >>> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to the
> > UI
> > >> though.
> > >> >> So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements
> at
> > >> the right
> > >> >> location and you're done.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Wido
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander <
> > >> wido@widodh.nl> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Hi,
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking
> and
> > >> recently
> > >> >>>> started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN
> > isolation
> > >> and a
> > >> >>>> shared network.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> This provides (from what we can see) all the features
> Basic
> > >> Networking
> > >> >>>> provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData while
> > the
> > >> Hypervisor
> > >> >>>> does the Security Grouping.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users as
> > >> you can't
> > >> >>>> simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we found
> > >> out that it's
> > >> >>>> possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't
> guarantee
> > >> it works in
> > >> >>>> every use-case. So doing this automatically during a
> > upgrade
> > >> would be
> > >> >>>> difficult.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic
> Networking
> > >> code for ever
> > >> >>>> I would like to propose and discuss the matter of
> > preventing
> > >> the
> > >> >>>> creation of new Basic Networking zones.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else
> > >> statements in the
> > >> >>>> code and it would make testing also easier as we have few
> > >> things to test.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Most of the development also seems to go in the Advanced
> > >> Networking
> > >> >>>> direction.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced Shared
> > >> Networks and
> > >> >>>> that's progressing very good as well.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where we
> > >> simplify the
> > >> >>>> networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic Networking
> > >> while keeping
> > >> >>>> it alive for existing users?
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Wido
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daan
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Rafael Weingärtner
>
--
Daan
Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
Posted by Rafael Weingärtner <ra...@gmail.com>.
This one [1]?
[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Roadmap
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Wido, there used to be a page on cwiki with plans for 5.0, I can not find
> it anymore but this should be added to it.
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 6:42 PM, ilya musayev <
> ilya.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I think the simplicity of Basic Zone was - you can get away with 1 VLAN
> > for everything (great for POC setup) where as Advanced Shared with VLAN
> > isolation requires several VLANs to get going.
> >
> > How would we cover this use case?
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:34 AM Tutkowski, Mike <
> > Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Also, yes, I agree with the list you provided, Wido. We might have to
> >> break “other fancy stuff” into more detail, though. ;)
> >>
> >> On 6/20/18, 12:32 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sorry, Wido :) I missed that part.
> >>
> >> On 6/20/18, 5:03 AM, "Wido den Hollander" <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 06/20/2018 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
> >> > If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good time to
> >> bump CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
> >> >
> >>
> >> That's what I said in my e-mail :-) But yes, I agree with you,
> >> this
> >> might be a good time to bump it to 5.0
> >>
> >> With that we would:
> >>
> >> - Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
> >> - Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
> >> - Java 9?
> >> - Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
> >> - Other fancy stuff?
> >> - Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly
> >>
> >> How would that sound?
> >>
> >> Wido
> >>
> >> >> On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Wido den Hollander <
> >> wido@widodh.nl> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>> On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> >> >>> I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even
> >> though I myself
> >> >>> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to give a
> >> simple start
> >> >>> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page
> >> wizard for creating
> >> >>> a shared network in advanced zone with security groups and
> >> userdata, great.
> >> >>
> >> >> That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter of using
> >> VLAN
> >> >> isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because that's
> >> basically
> >> >> what Basic Networking does.
> >> >>
> >> >> It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM).
> >> >>
> >> >> If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri in Advanced
> >> Networking
> >> >> you get exactly the same result.
> >> >>
> >> >>> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple by
> >> throwing at as
> >> >>> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:
> >> >>
> >> >> I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to the
> UI
> >> though.
> >> >> So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.
> >> >>
> >> >> Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements at
> >> the right
> >> >> location and you're done.
> >> >>
> >> >> Wido
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander <
> >> wido@widodh.nl> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Hi,
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking and
> >> recently
> >> >>>> started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN
> isolation
> >> and a
> >> >>>> shared network.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> This provides (from what we can see) all the features Basic
> >> Networking
> >> >>>> provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData while
> the
> >> Hypervisor
> >> >>>> does the Security Grouping.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users as
> >> you can't
> >> >>>> simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we found
> >> out that it's
> >> >>>> possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't guarantee
> >> it works in
> >> >>>> every use-case. So doing this automatically during a
> upgrade
> >> would be
> >> >>>> difficult.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic Networking
> >> code for ever
> >> >>>> I would like to propose and discuss the matter of
> preventing
> >> the
> >> >>>> creation of new Basic Networking zones.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else
> >> statements in the
> >> >>>> code and it would make testing also easier as we have few
> >> things to test.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Most of the development also seems to go in the Advanced
> >> Networking
> >> >>>> direction.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced Shared
> >> Networks and
> >> >>>> that's progressing very good as well.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where we
> >> simplify the
> >> >>>> networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic Networking
> >> while keeping
> >> >>>> it alive for existing users?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Wido
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
> --
> Daan
>
--
Rafael Weingärtner
Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
Wido, there used to be a page on cwiki with plans for 5.0, I can not find
it anymore but this should be added to it.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 6:42 PM, ilya musayev <il...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I think the simplicity of Basic Zone was - you can get away with 1 VLAN
> for everything (great for POC setup) where as Advanced Shared with VLAN
> isolation requires several VLANs to get going.
>
> How would we cover this use case?
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:34 AM Tutkowski, Mike <
> Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com> wrote:
>
>> Also, yes, I agree with the list you provided, Wido. We might have to
>> break “other fancy stuff” into more detail, though. ;)
>>
>> On 6/20/18, 12:32 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, Wido :) I missed that part.
>>
>> On 6/20/18, 5:03 AM, "Wido den Hollander" <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/20/2018 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
>> > If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good time to
>> bump CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
>> >
>>
>> That's what I said in my e-mail :-) But yes, I agree with you,
>> this
>> might be a good time to bump it to 5.0
>>
>> With that we would:
>>
>> - Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
>> - Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
>> - Java 9?
>> - Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
>> - Other fancy stuff?
>> - Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly
>>
>> How would that sound?
>>
>> Wido
>>
>> >> On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Wido den Hollander <
>> wido@widodh.nl> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>> >>> I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even
>> though I myself
>> >>> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to give a
>> simple start
>> >>> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page
>> wizard for creating
>> >>> a shared network in advanced zone with security groups and
>> userdata, great.
>> >>
>> >> That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter of using
>> VLAN
>> >> isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because that's
>> basically
>> >> what Basic Networking does.
>> >>
>> >> It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM).
>> >>
>> >> If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri in Advanced
>> Networking
>> >> you get exactly the same result.
>> >>
>> >>> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple by
>> throwing at as
>> >>> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:
>> >>
>> >> I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to the UI
>> though.
>> >> So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.
>> >>
>> >> Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements at
>> the right
>> >> location and you're done.
>> >>
>> >> Wido
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander <
>> wido@widodh.nl> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking and
>> recently
>> >>>> started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN isolation
>> and a
>> >>>> shared network.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This provides (from what we can see) all the features Basic
>> Networking
>> >>>> provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData while the
>> Hypervisor
>> >>>> does the Security Grouping.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users as
>> you can't
>> >>>> simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we found
>> out that it's
>> >>>> possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't guarantee
>> it works in
>> >>>> every use-case. So doing this automatically during a upgrade
>> would be
>> >>>> difficult.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic Networking
>> code for ever
>> >>>> I would like to propose and discuss the matter of preventing
>> the
>> >>>> creation of new Basic Networking zones.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else
>> statements in the
>> >>>> code and it would make testing also easier as we have few
>> things to test.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Most of the development also seems to go in the Advanced
>> Networking
>> >>>> direction.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced Shared
>> Networks and
>> >>>> that's progressing very good as well.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where we
>> simplify the
>> >>>> networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic Networking
>> while keeping
>> >>>> it alive for existing users?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Wido
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
--
Daan
Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
Posted by ilya musayev <il...@gmail.com>.
I think the simplicity of Basic Zone was - you can get away with 1 VLAN for
everything (great for POC setup) where as Advanced Shared with VLAN
isolation requires several VLANs to get going.
How would we cover this use case?
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:34 AM Tutkowski, Mike <Mi...@netapp.com>
wrote:
> Also, yes, I agree with the list you provided, Wido. We might have to
> break “other fancy stuff” into more detail, though. ;)
>
> On 6/20/18, 12:32 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry, Wido :) I missed that part.
>
> On 6/20/18, 5:03 AM, "Wido den Hollander" <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 06/20/2018 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
> > If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good time to
> bump CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
> >
>
> That's what I said in my e-mail :-) But yes, I agree with you, this
> might be a good time to bump it to 5.0
>
> With that we would:
>
> - Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
> - Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
> - Java 9?
> - Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
> - Other fancy stuff?
> - Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly
>
> How would that sound?
>
> Wido
>
> >> On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> >>> I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even though
> I myself
> >>> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to give a
> simple start
> >>> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page wizard
> for creating
> >>> a shared network in advanced zone with security groups and
> userdata, great.
> >>
> >> That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter of using VLAN
> >> isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because that's
> basically
> >> what Basic Networking does.
> >>
> >> It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM).
> >>
> >> If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri in Advanced
> Networking
> >> you get exactly the same result.
> >>
> >>> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple by
> throwing at as
> >>> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:
> >>
> >> I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to the UI
> though.
> >> So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.
> >>
> >> Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements at
> the right
> >> location and you're done.
> >>
> >> Wido
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander <
> wido@widodh.nl> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking and
> recently
> >>>> started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN isolation
> and a
> >>>> shared network.
> >>>>
> >>>> This provides (from what we can see) all the features Basic
> Networking
> >>>> provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData while the
> Hypervisor
> >>>> does the Security Grouping.
> >>>>
> >>>> That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.
> >>>>
> >>>> Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users as you
> can't
> >>>> simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we found out
> that it's
> >>>> possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't guarantee
> it works in
> >>>> every use-case. So doing this automatically during a upgrade
> would be
> >>>> difficult.
> >>>>
> >>>> To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic Networking
> code for ever
> >>>> I would like to propose and discuss the matter of preventing
> the
> >>>> creation of new Basic Networking zones.
> >>>>
> >>>> In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else
> statements in the
> >>>> code and it would make testing also easier as we have few
> things to test.
> >>>>
> >>>> Most of the development also seems to go in the Advanced
> Networking
> >>>> direction.
> >>>>
> >>>> We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced Shared
> Networks and
> >>>> that's progressing very good as well.
> >>>>
> >>>> Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where we
> simplify the
> >>>> networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic Networking
> while keeping
> >>>> it alive for existing users?
> >>>>
> >>>> Wido
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
Posted by "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>.
Also, yes, I agree with the list you provided, Wido. We might have to break “other fancy stuff” into more detail, though. ;)
On 6/20/18, 12:32 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com> wrote:
Sorry, Wido :) I missed that part.
On 6/20/18, 5:03 AM, "Wido den Hollander" <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
On 06/20/2018 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
> If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good time to bump CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
>
That's what I said in my e-mail :-) But yes, I agree with you, this
might be a good time to bump it to 5.0
With that we would:
- Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
- Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
- Java 9?
- Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
- Other fancy stuff?
- Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly
How would that sound?
Wido
>> On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>>> I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even though I myself
>>> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to give a simple start
>>> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page wizard for creating
>>> a shared network in advanced zone with security groups and userdata, great.
>>
>> That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter of using VLAN
>> isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because that's basically
>> what Basic Networking does.
>>
>> It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM).
>>
>> If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri in Advanced Networking
>> you get exactly the same result.
>>
>>> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple by throwing at as
>>> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:
>>
>> I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to the UI though.
>> So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.
>>
>> Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements at the right
>> location and you're done.
>>
>> Wido
>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking and recently
>>>> started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN isolation and a
>>>> shared network.
>>>>
>>>> This provides (from what we can see) all the features Basic Networking
>>>> provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData while the Hypervisor
>>>> does the Security Grouping.
>>>>
>>>> That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.
>>>>
>>>> Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users as you can't
>>>> simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we found out that it's
>>>> possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't guarantee it works in
>>>> every use-case. So doing this automatically during a upgrade would be
>>>> difficult.
>>>>
>>>> To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic Networking code for ever
>>>> I would like to propose and discuss the matter of preventing the
>>>> creation of new Basic Networking zones.
>>>>
>>>> In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else statements in the
>>>> code and it would make testing also easier as we have few things to test.
>>>>
>>>> Most of the development also seems to go in the Advanced Networking
>>>> direction.
>>>>
>>>> We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced Shared Networks and
>>>> that's progressing very good as well.
>>>>
>>>> Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where we simplify the
>>>> networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic Networking while keeping
>>>> it alive for existing users?
>>>>
>>>> Wido
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
Posted by "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>.
Sorry, Wido :) I missed that part.
On 6/20/18, 5:03 AM, "Wido den Hollander" <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
On 06/20/2018 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
> If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good time to bump CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
>
That's what I said in my e-mail :-) But yes, I agree with you, this
might be a good time to bump it to 5.0
With that we would:
- Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
- Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
- Java 9?
- Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
- Other fancy stuff?
- Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly
How would that sound?
Wido
>> On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>>> I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even though I myself
>>> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to give a simple start
>>> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page wizard for creating
>>> a shared network in advanced zone with security groups and userdata, great.
>>
>> That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter of using VLAN
>> isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because that's basically
>> what Basic Networking does.
>>
>> It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM).
>>
>> If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri in Advanced Networking
>> you get exactly the same result.
>>
>>> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple by throwing at as
>>> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:
>>
>> I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to the UI though.
>> So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.
>>
>> Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements at the right
>> location and you're done.
>>
>> Wido
>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking and recently
>>>> started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN isolation and a
>>>> shared network.
>>>>
>>>> This provides (from what we can see) all the features Basic Networking
>>>> provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData while the Hypervisor
>>>> does the Security Grouping.
>>>>
>>>> That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.
>>>>
>>>> Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users as you can't
>>>> simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we found out that it's
>>>> possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't guarantee it works in
>>>> every use-case. So doing this automatically during a upgrade would be
>>>> difficult.
>>>>
>>>> To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic Networking code for ever
>>>> I would like to propose and discuss the matter of preventing the
>>>> creation of new Basic Networking zones.
>>>>
>>>> In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else statements in the
>>>> code and it would make testing also easier as we have few things to test.
>>>>
>>>> Most of the development also seems to go in the Advanced Networking
>>>> direction.
>>>>
>>>> We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced Shared Networks and
>>>> that's progressing very good as well.
>>>>
>>>> Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where we simplify the
>>>> networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic Networking while keeping
>>>> it alive for existing users?
>>>>
>>>> Wido
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
Posted by Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>.
I never meant for this thread to de-rail into what should be CloudStack
5.0 :-)
I haven't heard any objections against the creation of new Basic
Networking Zones being prohibited, but hey, it's been <24 hours since I
send the first mail.
Wido
On 06/20/2018 04:51 PM, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
>>> With that we would:
>>>
>>> - Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
>>> - Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
>>> - Java 9?
>>> - Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
>>> - Other fancy stuff?
>> - Versioned API: keep v1 API (< v5.0.0) and create a v2 API >= v5.0.0
>> where we fix all inconsistencies (ACL API generally, paging does not
>> always work, returned keys sometime camel case (crossZone), a.s.o.)
>
> - Usable Error Messages (including a reason why things failed). Nothing fancy
> I think, following the respective Stacktrace in the Logfile, the top most exception
> shows everything (in most cases), but looks like the last "generic" exception is
> reported.
>
>
>>>
>>> - Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
Posted by Rafael Weingärtner <ra...@gmail.com>.
- When roles do not have access to some API methods, the buttons/links that
use these API methods should disappear from the interface.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Stephan Seitz <s....@heinlein-support.de>
wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
> > > With that we would:
> > >
> > > - Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
> > > - Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
> > > - Java 9?
> > > - Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
> > > - Other fancy stuff?
> > - Versioned API: keep v1 API (< v5.0.0) and create a v2 API >= v5.0.0
> > where we fix all inconsistencies (ACL API generally, paging does not
> > always work, returned keys sometime camel case (crossZone), a.s.o.)
>
> - Usable Error Messages (including a reason why things failed). Nothing
> fancy
> I think, following the respective Stacktrace in the Logfile, the top most
> exception
> shows everything (in most cases), but looks like the last "generic"
> exception is
> reported.
>
>
> > >
> > > - Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly
>
>
>
--
Rafael Weingärtner
Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
Posted by Stephan Seitz <s....@heinlein-support.de>.
Hi!
> > With that we would:
> >
> > - Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
> > - Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
> > - Java 9?
> > - Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
> > - Other fancy stuff?
> - Versioned API: keep v1 API (< v5.0.0) and create a v2 API >= v5.0.0
> where we fix all inconsistencies (ACL API generally, paging does not
> always work, returned keys sometime camel case (crossZone), a.s.o.)
- Usable Error Messages (including a reason why things failed). Nothing fancy
I think, following the respective Stacktrace in the Logfile, the top most exception
shows everything (in most cases), but looks like the last "generic" exception is
reported.
> >
> > - Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly
Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
Posted by Rafael Weingärtner <ra...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Rene Moser <ma...@renemoser.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 06/20/2018 01:03 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 06/20/2018 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
> >> If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good time to bump
> CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
> >>
> >
> > That's what I said in my e-mail :-) But yes, I agree with you, this
> > might be a good time to bump it to 5.0
> >
> > With that we would:
> >
> > - Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
> > - Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
> > - Java 9?
> > - Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
> > - Other fancy stuff?
>
> - Versioned API: keep v1 API (< v5.0.0) and create a v2 API >= v5.0.0
> where we fix all inconsistencies (ACL API generally, paging does not
> always work, returned keys sometime camel case (crossZone), a.s.o.)
>
> > - Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly
>
--
Rafael Weingärtner
Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
Posted by Rene Moser <ma...@renemoser.net>.
On 06/20/2018 01:03 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote:
>
>
> On 06/20/2018 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
>> If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good time to bump CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
>>
>
> That's what I said in my e-mail :-) But yes, I agree with you, this
> might be a good time to bump it to 5.0
>
> With that we would:
>
> - Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
> - Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
> - Java 9?
> - Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
> - Other fancy stuff?
- Versioned API: keep v1 API (< v5.0.0) and create a v2 API >= v5.0.0
where we fix all inconsistencies (ACL API generally, paging does not
always work, returned keys sometime camel case (crossZone), a.s.o.)
> - Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly
Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
Posted by Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>.
On 06/20/2018 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
> If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good time to bump CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
>
That's what I said in my e-mail :-) But yes, I agree with you, this
might be a good time to bump it to 5.0
With that we would:
- Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
- Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
- Java 9?
- Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
- Other fancy stuff?
- Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly
How would that sound?
Wido
>> On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>>> I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even though I myself
>>> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to give a simple start
>>> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page wizard for creating
>>> a shared network in advanced zone with security groups and userdata, great.
>>
>> That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter of using VLAN
>> isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because that's basically
>> what Basic Networking does.
>>
>> It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM).
>>
>> If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri in Advanced Networking
>> you get exactly the same result.
>>
>>> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple by throwing at as
>>> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:
>>
>> I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to the UI though.
>> So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.
>>
>> Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements at the right
>> location and you're done.
>>
>> Wido
>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking and recently
>>>> started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN isolation and a
>>>> shared network.
>>>>
>>>> This provides (from what we can see) all the features Basic Networking
>>>> provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData while the Hypervisor
>>>> does the Security Grouping.
>>>>
>>>> That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.
>>>>
>>>> Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users as you can't
>>>> simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we found out that it's
>>>> possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't guarantee it works in
>>>> every use-case. So doing this automatically during a upgrade would be
>>>> difficult.
>>>>
>>>> To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic Networking code for ever
>>>> I would like to propose and discuss the matter of preventing the
>>>> creation of new Basic Networking zones.
>>>>
>>>> In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else statements in the
>>>> code and it would make testing also easier as we have few things to test.
>>>>
>>>> Most of the development also seems to go in the Advanced Networking
>>>> direction.
>>>>
>>>> We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced Shared Networks and
>>>> that's progressing very good as well.
>>>>
>>>> Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where we simplify the
>>>> networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic Networking while keeping
>>>> it alive for existing users?
>>>>
>>>> Wido
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
Posted by "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>.
If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good time to bump CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
> On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>> I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even though I myself
>> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to give a simple start
>> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page wizard for creating
>> a shared network in advanced zone with security groups and userdata, great.
>
> That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter of using VLAN
> isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because that's basically
> what Basic Networking does.
>
> It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM).
>
> If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri in Advanced Networking
> you get exactly the same result.
>
>> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple by throwing at as
>> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:
>
> I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to the UI though.
> So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.
>
> Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements at the right
> location and you're done.
>
> Wido
>
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking and recently
>>> started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN isolation and a
>>> shared network.
>>>
>>> This provides (from what we can see) all the features Basic Networking
>>> provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData while the Hypervisor
>>> does the Security Grouping.
>>>
>>> That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.
>>>
>>> Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users as you can't
>>> simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we found out that it's
>>> possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't guarantee it works in
>>> every use-case. So doing this automatically during a upgrade would be
>>> difficult.
>>>
>>> To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic Networking code for ever
>>> I would like to propose and discuss the matter of preventing the
>>> creation of new Basic Networking zones.
>>>
>>> In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else statements in the
>>> code and it would make testing also easier as we have few things to test.
>>>
>>> Most of the development also seems to go in the Advanced Networking
>>> direction.
>>>
>>> We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced Shared Networks and
>>> that's progressing very good as well.
>>>
>>> Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where we simplify the
>>> networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic Networking while keeping
>>> it alive for existing users?
>>>
>>> Wido
>>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
Posted by Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>.
On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even though I myself
> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to give a simple start
> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page wizard for creating
> a shared network in advanced zone with security groups and userdata, great.
That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter of using VLAN
isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because that's basically
what Basic Networking does.
It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM).
If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri in Advanced Networking
you get exactly the same result.
> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple by throwing at as
> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:
I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to the UI though.
So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.
Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements at the right
location and you're done.
Wido
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking and recently
>> started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN isolation and a
>> shared network.
>>
>> This provides (from what we can see) all the features Basic Networking
>> provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData while the Hypervisor
>> does the Security Grouping.
>>
>> That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.
>>
>> Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users as you can't
>> simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we found out that it's
>> possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't guarantee it works in
>> every use-case. So doing this automatically during a upgrade would be
>> difficult.
>>
>> To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic Networking code for ever
>> I would like to propose and discuss the matter of preventing the
>> creation of new Basic Networking zones.
>>
>> In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else statements in the
>> code and it would make testing also easier as we have few things to test.
>>
>> Most of the development also seems to go in the Advanced Networking
>> direction.
>>
>> We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced Shared Networks and
>> that's progressing very good as well.
>>
>> Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where we simplify the
>> networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic Networking while keeping
>> it alive for existing users?
>>
>> Wido
>>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even though I myself
might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to give a simple start
for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page wizard for creating
a shared network in advanced zone with security groups and userdata, great.
And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple by throwing at as
much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking and recently
> started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN isolation and a
> shared network.
>
> This provides (from what we can see) all the features Basic Networking
> provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData while the Hypervisor
> does the Security Grouping.
>
> That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.
>
> Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users as you can't
> simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we found out that it's
> possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't guarantee it works in
> every use-case. So doing this automatically during a upgrade would be
> difficult.
>
> To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic Networking code for ever
> I would like to propose and discuss the matter of preventing the
> creation of new Basic Networking zones.
>
> In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else statements in the
> code and it would make testing also easier as we have few things to test.
>
> Most of the development also seems to go in the Advanced Networking
> direction.
>
> We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced Shared Networks and
> that's progressing very good as well.
>
> Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where we simplify the
> networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic Networking while keeping
> it alive for existing users?
>
> Wido
>
--
Daan