<div dir="ltr">Hey guys!<div><br></div><div>I just find out a pretty good document about using IPv6 with OpenStack Grizzly, take a look!</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.nephos6.com/pdf/OpenStack-on-IPv6.pdf">http://www.nephos6.com/pdf/OpenStack-on-IPv6.pdf</a><br>
</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.nephos6.com/insights/whitepapers/">http://www.nephos6.com/insights/whitepapers/</a><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>BTW, nice talk here! Tks!</div><div><br></div>
<div>
Cheers!</div><div>Thiago</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 13 August 2013 01:33, Sam Stoelinga <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sammiestoel@gmail.com" target="_blank">sammiestoel@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">The last one about multi_host seems weird. The instances still need a gateway in the end, so if you don't use multi_host, that gateway is a single host and if you enable multi_host, the gateway is the host, that is running the instances.<div>
<br></div><div>With ipv6 you would still not want a single host as gateway, so it seems you may be wrong or I may be lol.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:16 AM, Martinx - $B%8%'!<%`%:(B <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:thiagocmartinsc@gmail.com" target="_blank">thiagocmartinsc@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5"><div dir="ltr"><div>Also,</div><div><br></div><div>There is no need for "multihost = true" when using with IPv6...</div>
<div><br></div><div>Why?</div><div><br></div><div>Because "Multihost = true" turns on a NAT table (MASQUERADE I think) within each compute node... Effectively hiding its running Instances and acting as its default gateway but... Let IPv6 do the job without NAT... =P</div>
<div><br></div><div>NOTE: Please, let me know if my above statement is wrong... I like to hear criticism, I have no problem with that...</div><div><br></div><div>Long life to OpenStack!</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers!</div>
<div>Thiago</div></div><div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 8 August 2013 16:51, Martinx - $B%8%'!<%`%:(B <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:thiagocmartinsc@gmail.com" target="_blank">thiagocmartinsc@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Guys,</div><div><br></div><div>I'm designing my Cloud Computing still based on IPv4 but, I already started to think on IPv6 every single day...</div>
<div><br></div><div>So, I'm figuring out that, when we have OpenStack working 100% with IPv6, we'll not need the following features:</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>With IPv6, there is no need for:</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>1- NAT;</div><div><br></div><div>2- Floating IPs;</div><div><br></div><div>3- Use of Namespaces.</div><div><br></div>
<div><br></div><div>But, why?!</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>1- There is no NAT for IPv6 (since NAT was a hack / workaround to deal with IPv4 exhaustion); Here in Brazil, we call NAT tables a huge "gambiarra" (the worse thing of the old IPv4 networks, which the IPv6 gracefully addresses it)...</div>
<div><br></div><div>2- Floating IPs are also NAT rules, no need for it;</div><div><br></div><div>3- Namespaces are used mostly to allow tenants to share the same IPv4 invalid subnet, for example, tenant A have <a href="http://192.168.1.0/24" target="_blank">192.168.1.0/24</a> and also tenant B can have another <a href="http://192.168.1.0/24" target="_blank">192.168.1.0/24</a> that will not conflict at the Network Node, because of the Namespaces there but, who needs this when dealing only with IPv6?! No one.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div> Look, this OpenStack approach of presenting Linux Namespaces as tenant routers, is AWESOME! It is a pretty good idea! I really like it but, it will be entirely optional when using with IPv6, since the Global Public IPv6 will never enter in conflict with each other "by its very nature"...</div>
<div><br></div><div>I'm here saying this because I really want to see a single OpenStack option to completely disable "Floating IPs and NAT rules", like "Namespaces options" have its "allow_overlapping_ips = False / use_namespaces = False".</div>
<div><br></div><div>I think that OpenStack should provides something like this: "use_floating_ips = False / use_nat = False" to disable it.</div><div><br></div><div>What do you guys think?!</div><div><br></div>
<div>
Cheers!</div><div>Thiago</div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br></div></div><div class="im">_______________________________________________<br>
Mailing list: <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack</a><br>
Post to : <a href="mailto:openstack@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">openstack@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
Unsubscribe : <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack</a><br>
<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>