We update the VR offering to be 4 Core, 4GB. Its a single router setup atm but we’re going to make it redundant soon.
Also, we have a 3rd case which i forgot to mention. Internet/Leased Line -> ASG LB (API GW) -> Private Gateway to another VPC within same zone -> ASG LB (Microservice 3) -> DB This scenario is meant to route traffic from VPC A (API GW only) to many other customer VPCs. Regards, Bryan On 30 Aug 2024 at 1:48 AM +0800, Wei ZHOU <ustcweiz...@gmail.com>, wrote: > Thanks for sharing. Interesting > > How many cpu and memory does you VR have ? > > > -Wei > On Thursday, August 29, 2024, Bryan Tiang <bryantian...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Alex and Wei Zhou, > > > > Thanks for the input, so it seems this new feature is more beneficial for > > those who are currently using Shared Networks. > > > > We have 50 AutoscaleGroups in a single VR because our company mainly > > distributes/broadcasts stock prices from multiple exchanges to public > > users, so lots of micro services that need to autoscale instantaneously > > when the markets suddenly spike/rally which can result in 1 - 10x traffic > > bursts. > > > > However, most of our Autoscale Groups consists of API Gateways to route > > traffic to different network tiers and micro services. This is what takes > > up lots of Autoscale Groups. > > > > We had to duplicate lots of API Gateway into multiple Autoscale Groups > > because the current feature only allows load balancing to 1 single port. > > > > So this is more of a workaround for us to overcome the current Autoscale > > feature limitation. > > > > I think something worth mentioning is that our Autoscale Group, load > > balances traffic to other Autoscale Groups. > > > > For example: > > > > Internet -> ASG LB (API GW) -> ASG LB (Microservice 1) -> Database > > > > And in some cases, we have this as well: > > > > Internet -> ASG LB (API GW) -> ASG LB (Microservice 1) -> ASG LB > > (Microservice 2)-> Database > > > > I guess makes the VR very busy. > > > > Happy to share more, sounds like our use is bit extreme… but it works so > > far though. Its only the CPU Utilisation that’s concerning… (memory is > > always around 40% so not a bottleneck there) > > > > Regards, > > Bryan > > On 29 Aug 2024 at 11:27 PM +0800, Alex Mattioli < > > alex.matti...@shapeblue.com>, wrote: > > > Hi Bryan, > > > > > > What's your use case for 50 autoscale groups in 1 VR? When designing the > > feature we never envisioned more than 2 or 3. > > > > > > In NAT mode you should be able to get some 3gpbs through the VR, in > > ROUTED mode then some 6-7gbps. Those numbers do go down (considerably > > sometimes) with the number of firewall rules, load balancing, etc... you > > have setup in the network. > > > > > > You'll need to create new networks in ROUTED mode, there's no migration > > path from NATTED mode to ROUTED mode. > > > > > > You definitely can allow all traffic in the firewall and setup firewall > > rules in each individual VM. > > > > > > In this initial implementation there's no load balancer in ROUTED mode, > > so no Autoscale groups. But it is definitely a possible improvement for > > future versions. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Alex > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Bryan Tiang <bryantian...@hotmail.com> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 11:11 AM > > > To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org; us...@cloudstack.apache.org > > > Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > > Subject: RE: Port Forwarding in Network > > > > > > Hey Alex, > > > > > > It’s exiting to hear this new features coming about, and that the VR > > performance will be improved as a result of pure routing. > > > > > > We have a pain point right now where our VR is at 75% CPU when handling > > 200Mbps Internet Traffic. Probably because we have 50 Autoscale Groups > > within that 1 VR… (VR is 4Core,4GB). > > > > > > We have plans support 1Gb-5Gbps Internet Bandwidth within a single VR > > one day, but if it’s already at 75%… kinda worrying for us. So this is > > exciting. > > > > > > I went through the design document and have few questions. Is this going > > to be a new network? Or can existing VPC networks upgrade to Routed Mode? > > > > > > Since every VM will get to have its own Public IP, does it mean every VM > > can have its own firewall rules now? > > > > > > Will this feature be available for Autoscale Groups? We are heavy users > > of it. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Bryan > > > On 29 Aug 2024 at 4:22 AM +0800, Alex Mattioli < > > alex.matti...@shapeblue.com>, wrote: > > > > Hi Marty, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's the documentation for Routed Mode and Simple Dynamic Routing, I > > did the original design and my colleague @Wei Zhou<mailto:Wei.Zhou@ > > shapeblue.com> refined and implemented it. > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage. > > action?pageId=306153967 > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage. > > action?pageId=315492858 > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Marty Godsey <mar...@rudio.net> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2024 11:07 AM > > > > To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org > > > > Subject: Re: Port Forwarding in Network > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, Alex. I am excited about that addition. Even having the > > ability to not have to NAT is very useful. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Marty Godsey > > > > > > > > Rudio, LLC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Book Time: https://calendly.com/rudio-martyg > > > > > > > > Support: supp...@rudio.net<mailto:supp...@rudio.net?subject=Rudio% > > 20Support<mailto:supp...@rudio.net%3cmailto:support@ > > rudio.net?subject=Rudio%20Support>> > > > > > > > > Ph: 859-328-1100 > > > > > > > > The content of this email is intended for the person or entity to > > which it is addressed only. This email may contain confidential > > information. If you are not the person to whom this message is addressed, > > be aware that any use, reproduction, or distribution of this message is > > strictly prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the > > sender and immediately delete this email and any attachments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Alex Mattioli <alex.matti...@shapeblue.com<mailto:Alex.Mattioli@ > > shapeblue.com>> > > > > > > > > Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 at 11:56 AM > > > > > > > > To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:us...@cloudstack.apache.org> < > > us...@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:us...@cloudstack.apache.org>> > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: Port Forwarding in Network > > > > > > > > WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do > > not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and > > know the content is safe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Marty, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are two PRs in progress, one for Routed Mode for IPv4 in > > Isolated Networks and VPCs and another for Simple Dynamic Route with BGP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With Routed Mode you'll be able to assign public IPs directly to VMs, > > this should be ready for ACS 4.20, which will be routed via the ACS VR. > > > > > > > > This has been possible for IPv6 since ACS 4.17 and will work in a > > similar way (with some differences) for IPv4. Here's a video explaining how > > it works for IPv6: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvCSmU1TjRY&t=1583s > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As mentioned before, if you want to skip the VR completely then you > > need to use Shared Networks, but then end users can't deploy the networks > > themselves without operator intervention. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > From: Jayanth Babu A <jayanth.b...@nxtgen.com.INVALID<mailto: > > jayanth.b...@nxtgen.com.INVALID>> > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 10:27 AM > > > > > > > > To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:us...@cloudstack.apache.org> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Port Forwarding in Network > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Marty, > > > > > > > > Please use Shared Networks [1]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://atpscan.global.hornetsecurity.com/?d= > > xMOwK4fYoexeGDaCItpovxDkoPdExpSMKaLuotztWEw&f=1X9ll9UDNTAUv9XEhAoS- > > oCZLIFMKLOf3SQZgHrZSZlrXbexUH8NtKLJCqQbeAYB&i=&k=bm7B&m=x1rGyep2ImM3kF- > > 8P6y1JWh7yEkoCGNNgU8oyJkxPaALdf4b2xt3n4PE01uT1okjgB6Kw5tM2yI > > KoLpa6cjYlK58irpRbdjWYflteXydz9OVb4jJgpLPFwQzFkj2QYTn&n= > > qT4mJ0BYBeh6jAxOCD1hayLTVyupmjmzwzzkOhAmOF4z7wMla_tk04lc9D939Rfl&r= > > IVbx63cjnjXzXq_Sv0qS0mvAEousFhnYo0ONd_j_NKawfjzf9DWkEB-VcJALkcaL&s= > > 40bdd3dc1b6d4512eb8828b1f28bd4d08a871934dab0ba463a647f6e5f00 > > 9a36&u=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.cloudstack.apache.org%2Fen% > > 2Flatest%2Fadminguide%2Fnetworking.html%23shared-networks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Jayanth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > From: Marty Godsey <mar...@rudio.net<mailto:mar...@rudio.net>> > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 6:38:12 pm > > > > > > > > To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:us...@cloudstack.apache.org> < > > us...@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:us...@cloudstack.apache.org>> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Port Forwarding in Network > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is what I went ahead and used. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Has there been a feature request to create a way to directly provide a > > public IP to an instance instead of using a VR? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Marty Godsey > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Jithin Raju <jithin.r...@shapeblue.com<mailto: > > jithin.r...@shapeblue.com>> > > > > > > > > Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 at 12:06 AM > > > > > > > > To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:us...@cloudstack.apache.org> < > > us...@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:us...@cloudstack.apache.org>> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Port Forwarding in Network > > > > > > > > WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do > > not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and > > know the content is safe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Marty, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you use static NAT instead? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Jithin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Marty Godsey <mar...@rudio.net<mailto:mar...@rudio.net>> > > > > > > > > Date: Monday, 26 August 2024 at 9:26 PM > > > > > > > > To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:us...@cloudstack.apache.org> < > > us...@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:us...@cloudstack.apache.org>> > > > > > > > > Subject: Port Forwarding in Network > > > > > > > > Is there a way to easily forward all ports without having to put in 1 > > – 65525? I know it’s small and petty, but in other places, you can do a -1 > > to specify all. You don’t seem to be able to do that here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Marty Godsey > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Disclaimer *** This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL > > INFORMATION intended solely for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not > > the intended recipient, please notify the sender by e-mail and delete the > > original message. Further, you are not authorised to copy, disclose, or > > distribute this e-mail or its contents to any other person and any such > > actions are unlawful and strictly prohibited. This e-mail may contain > > viruses. NxtGen Datacenter & Cloud Technologies Private Ltd (“NxtGen”) has > > taken every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk but is not liable > > for any damage you may sustain as a result of any virus in this e-mail. You > > should carry out your own virus checks before opening the e-mail or > > attachment. NxtGen reserves the right to monitor and review the content of > > all messages sent to or from this e-mail address. Messages sent to or from > > this e-mail address may be stored on the NxtGen e-mail system. *** End of > > Disclaimer ***NXTGEN*** > >
