Open Stack

Hey guys!

I just find out a pretty good document about using IPv6 with OpenStack
Grizzly, take a look!


http://www.nephos6.com/pdf/OpenStack-on-IPv6.pdf

http://www.nephos6.com/insights/whitepapers/


BTW, nice talk here! Tks!

Cheers!
Thiago


On 13 August 2013 01:33, Sam Stoelinga <sammiestoel at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20130918/dbe4e19b/attachment.html>