Open Stack

The last one about multi_host seems weird. The instances still need a
gateway in the end, so if you don't use multi_host, that gateway is a
single host and if you enable multi_host, the gateway is the host, that is
running the instances.

With ipv6 you would still not want a single host as gateway, so it seems
you may be wrong or I may be lol.


On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:16 AM, Martinx - ジェームズ
<thiagocmartinsc at gmail.com>wrote:

> Also,
>
> There is no need for "multihost = true" when using with IPv6...
>
> Why?
>
> Because "Multihost = true" turns on a NAT table (MASQUERADE I think)
> within each compute node... Effectively hiding its running Instances and
> acting as its default gateway but... Let IPv6 do the job without NAT...   =P
>
> NOTE: Please, let me know if my above statement is wrong... I like to hear
> criticism, I have no problem with that...
>
> Long life to OpenStack!
>
> Cheers!
> Thiago
>
>
> On 8 August 2013 16:51, Martinx - ジェームズ <thiagocmartinsc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Guys,
>>
>> I'm designing my Cloud Computing still based on IPv4 but, I already
>> started to think on IPv6 every single day...
>>
>> So, I'm figuring out that, when we have OpenStack working 100% with IPv6,
>> we'll not need the following features:
>>
>>
>> With IPv6, there is no need for:
>>
>>
>> 1- NAT;
>>
>> 2- Floating IPs;
>>
>> 3- Use of Namespaces.
>>
>>
>> But, why?!
>>
>>
>> 1- There is no NAT for IPv6 (since NAT was a hack / workaround to deal
>> with IPv4 exhaustion); Here in Brazil, we call NAT tables a huge
>> "gambiarra" (the worse thing of the old IPv4 networks, which the IPv6
>> gracefully addresses it)...
>>
>> 2- Floating IPs are also NAT rules, no need for it;
>>
>> 3- Namespaces are used mostly to allow tenants to share the same IPv4
>> invalid subnet, for example, tenant A have 192.168.1.0/24 and also
>> tenant B can have another 192.168.1.0/24 that will not conflict at the
>> Network Node, because of the Namespaces there but, who needs this when
>> dealing only with IPv6?! No one.
>>
>>
>>  Look, this OpenStack approach of presenting Linux Namespaces as tenant
>> routers, is AWESOME! It is a pretty good idea! I really like it but, it
>> will be entirely optional when using with IPv6, since the Global Public
>> IPv6 will never enter in conflict with each other "by its very nature"...
>>
>> I'm here saying this because I really want to see a single OpenStack
>> option to completely disable "Floating IPs and NAT rules", like "Namespaces
>> options" have its "allow_overlapping_ips = False / use_namespaces = False".
>>
>> I think that OpenStack should provides something like this:
>> "use_floating_ips = False / use_nat = False" to disable it.
>>
>> What do you guys think?!
>>
>>  Cheers!
>> Thiago
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list:
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
> Post to     : openstack at lists.openstack.org
> Unsubscribe :
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/attachments/20130813/5a89333c/attachment.html>