Mailing List Archive: OpenStack: Dev

OpenStack and its brilliant future with IPv6 and, we don't need...

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

%`%:_(B<thiagocmartinsc at gmail

Aug 8, 2013, 12:51 PM

Post #1 of 6 (51 views)
Permalink

OpenStack and its brilliant future with IPv6 and, we don't need...

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

jaypipes at gmail

Aug 8, 2013, 1:07 PM

Post #2 of 6 (51 views)
Permalink

Re: OpenStack and its brilliant future with IPv6 and, we don't need... [In reply to]

On 08/08/2013 03:51 PM, Martinx - ジェームズ 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
> <http://192.168.1.0/24> and also tenant B can have another
> 192.168.1.0/24 <http://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?!

I will celebrate mightily when this becomes a reality, and I agree with
your assessment above about why IPv6 makes many of the headaches of
floating IP addressing (and assignment/deallocation) and NAT'ing a thing
of the past.

-jay

_______________________________________________
Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
Post to : openstack [at] lists
Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack

robertc at robertcollins

Aug 8, 2013, 2:31 PM

Post #3 of 6 (49 views)
Permalink

Re: OpenStack and its brilliant future with IPv6 and, we don't need... [In reply to]

On 9 August 2013 07:51, Martinx - $B%8%'!<%`%:(B <thiagocmartinsc [at] gmail> wrote:

> 1- NAT;

There's no /need/ for it in IP4 in a lot of environments. Only public
cloud providers really need to do NAT in IP4.

> 2- Floating IPs;

Implemented via NAT, but not about NAT: they are about being able to
move endpoints instantly without dns cache issues - an HA tool, and a
well-known-address tool. The implementation is changable but the
concept is valuable in IPv6 too IMNSHO.

> 3- Use of Namespaces.

I don't see how this is related : with SDN someone can define the same
IPv6 range in two tenants, so namespaces are still needed.
-Rob

--
Robert Collins <rbtcollins [at] hp>
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud

_______________________________________________
Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
Post to : openstack [at] lists
Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack

%`%:_(B<thiagocmartinsc at gmail

Aug 8, 2013, 4:04 PM

Post #4 of 6 (49 views)
Permalink

Re: OpenStack and its brilliant future with IPv6 and, we don't need... [In reply to]

Thank you guys for your answers!

On 8 August 2013 18:31, Robert Collins <robertc [at] robertcollins> wrote:

> On 9 August 2013 07:51, Martinx - $B%8%'!<%`%:(B <thiagocmartinsc [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> > 1- NAT;
>
> There's no /need/ for it in IP4 in a lot of environments. Only public
> cloud providers really need to do NAT in IP4.

Mostly because of IPv4 exhaustion, RackSpace Public Cloud ISP give to me,
public IPv4 within my cloud...

AWS/EC2 now focus on "VPCs" (IPv4 "private") networks but, I'm seeing this
act more or less like "milking a dead cow (IPv4)"...

> > 2- Floating IPs;
>
> Implemented via NAT, but not about NAT: they are about being able to
> move endpoints instantly without dns cache issues - an HA tool, and a
> well-known-address tool. The implementation is changable but the
> concept is valuable in IPv6 too IMNSHO.
>

Mmm... Okay, I understand it a bit better now... I'll research a bit more
about it... =)

Anyway, I would like to be able to live without it... If possible / not too
much trouble (for OpenStack devel team) to be able to disable it with a
option...

>
> > 3- Use of Namespaces.
>
> I don't see how this is related : with SDN someone can define the same
> IPv6 range in two tenants, so namespaces are still needed.
>

Are you saying that is this:

* give to Tenant A (namespace X), the IPv6 block: 2001:1291:200:83f6::/64

* give to Tenant B (namespace Y), the same IPv6 block:
2001:1291:200:83f6::/64

...possible???

Sounds cool! I'll take a deep look into SDN...

-Rob
>

Thanks for clarifying it for me!

-
Thiago

>
> --
> Robert Collins <rbtcollins [at] hp>
> Distinguished Technologist
> HP Converged Cloud
>

%`%:_(B<thiagocmartinsc at gmail

Aug 12, 2013, 1:16 PM

Post #5 of 6 (6 views)
Permalink

Re: OpenStack and its brilliant future with IPv6 and, we don't need... [In reply to]

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 - $B%8%'!<%`%:(B <thiagocmartinsc [at] gmail> 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
>

sammiestoel at gmail

Aug 12, 2013, 9:33 PM

Post #6 of 6 (2 views)
Permalink

Re: OpenStack and its brilliant future with IPv6 and, we don't need... [In reply to]

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 - $B%8%'!<%`%:(B
<thiagocmartinsc [at] gmail>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 - $B%8%'!<%`%:(B <thiagocmartinsc [at] gmail> 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
> Unsubscribe :
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
>
>

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads