[Openstack-operators] VM with a public IP

Warren Wang warren at wangspeed.com
Tue Aug 14 02:04:03 UTC 2012

I was hoping someone would answer Paul's question, as we are also
interested in skipping the whole NAT thing.  It's not as important in an
enterprise environment where the VMs are going to have to have the floating
addresses assigned anyways.  Eliminating NAT makes it simpler.  Yes, there
are drawbacks, and it's less flexible, but it's also easier on the
customers and cloud admins.

It isn't impossible to hack in as is, but if it's been documented and test,
it would be nice to have a guide.


On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:

> On 2012-08-13 19:44:18 -0500 (-0500), Narayan Desai wrote:
> [...]
> > This is probably an early example of a situation that will occur
> > repeatedly, where people are constrained one way or another,
> > either due to policy or software limitations, etc, and I think
> > that these issues really need to be considered carefully.
> [...]
> Agreed. My last employer (an IaaS provider grown out of a colocation
> and datacenter management company) is in a similar situation...
> customers want to blend their colocated servers and virtual machines
> from the public "cloud" platform together on the same subnets and
> VLANs. The commercial IaaS management platform the provider
> purchased made similar assumptions about the network topology--only
> one subnet to a VLAN, available IP addresses were in a contiguous
> range, et cetera.
> Turns out when you start bridging virtual machine networks into
> existing production server networks which weren't designed around
> those assumptions, having the additional flexibility to relieve your
> customer from needing to redesign their networks is often desirable
> even sometimes at the expense of operational scalability. And so the
> provider disabled the network management components within the
> platform for those customers and allowed them to manually manage
> their virtual machine addressing within each guest OS instead.
> The end result was that low-revenue colocation customers were more
> likely to convert their physical servers to hosted virtual machines
> because they could do it almost seamlessly, one at a time, keeping
> the same addressing within that network. Replacing customer-owned
> servers with IaaS virtual machines meant both more profit for the
> provider and a cost savings for the customers.
> --
> { IRL(Jeremy_Stanley); WWW(http://fungi.yuggoth.org/); PGP(43495829);
> WHOIS(STANL3-ARIN); SMTP(fungi at yuggoth.org); FINGER(fungi at yuggoth.org);
> MUD(kinrui at katarsis.mudpy.org:6669); IRC(fungi at irc.yuggoth.org#ccl); }
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20120813/b64047c9/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the OpenStack-operators mailing list