Open Stack

Sorry guys, I'll double post this to OpenStack Dev instead... My mistake...


On 11 February 2014 14:25, Martinx - ジェームズ <thiagocmartinsc at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hello Stackers!
>
> It is very nice to watch the OpenStack evolution in IPv6! Great job guys!!
>
>
> I have another idea:
>
> "Floating IP" for IPv6, or just "Floating IPv6"
>
>
> With IPv4, as we know, OpenStack have a feature called "Floating IP",
> which is basically a 1-to-1 NAT rule (within tenant's Namespace q-router).
> In IPv4 networks, we need this "Floating IP" attached to a Instance, to
> be able to reach it from the Internet (*I don't like it*). But, what is
> the use case for a "Floating IP" when you have *no NAT** (as it is with
> IPv6)?!
>
> At first, when with IPv6, I was planning to disable the "Floating IP"
> feature entirely, by removing it from Dashboard and from APIs (even for
> IPv4, if FWaaS can in somehow, be able to manage q-router IPv4 NAT rules,
> and not only the "iptables filter table") and, I just had an idea!
>
> For IPv6, the "Floating IP" can still be used to allocate more (and more)
> IPs to a Instance BUT, instead of creating a NAT rule (like it is for
> IPv4), it will configure the DNSMasq (or something like it) to provide more
> IPv6 address per MAC / Instance. That way, we can virtually
> allocate unlimited IPs (v6) for each Instance!
>
> It will be pretty cool to see the attached "Floating IPv6", literally
> "floating around" the tenant subnet, appearing inside the Instances
> itself (instead of inside the tenant's Namespace), so, we'll be able to see
> it (the Floating IPv6) with "ip -6 address" command within the attached
> Instance!
>
> The only problem I see with this is that, for IPv4, the allocated "
> Floating IPs" come from the "External Network" (neutron /
> --allocation-pool) and, for IPv6, it will come from the tenant's IPv6 subnet
> itself... I think... Right?!
>
> ---
> Why I want tons of IPv6 within each Instance?
>
> A.: Because we can! I mean, we can go back to the days when we had 1
> website per 1 public IP (i.e. using IP-Based Virtual Hosts with Apache -
> I prefer this approach).
>
> Also, we can try to turn the "Floating IPv6", in some kind of "Floating
> IPv6 Range", this way, we can for example, allocate millions of IPs per
> Instance, like this in DHCPv6: "range6 2001:db8:1:1::1000
> 2001:db8:1:1000:1000;"...
> ---
>
> NOTE: I prefer multiple IPs per Instance, instead of 1 IP per Instance,
> when using VT, unless, of course, the Instances are based on Docker, so,
> with it, I can easily see millions of tiny instances, each of it with its
> own IPv6 address, without the overhead of virtualized environment. So, with
> Docker, this "Floating IPv6 Range" doesn't seems to be useful...
>
>
> * I know that there is NAT66 out there but, who is actually using it?!
> I'll never use this thing. Personally I dislike NAT very much, mostly
> because it breaks the end-to-end Internet connectivity, effectively kicking
> you out from the real Internet, and it is just a workaround created to deal
> with IPv4 exaustion.
>
>
> BTW, please guys, let me know if this isn't the right place to post "ideas
> for OpenStack / feature requests"... I don't want to bloat this list with
> undesirable messages.
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Thiago Martins
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/attachments/20140211/0948511e/attachment.html>