The VR has been biting us far too often recently, which is why we have started looking into alternative implementations.
One of the things that is nice about potentially using the VyOS is that it is based on Debian, so we should be able to run the other services that we currently have like the password server and userdata on the VyOS. This means we would not have to change our architecture initially and could focus on only replacing the networking paths. *Will STEVENS* Lead Developer *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_ On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:20 AM, Nux! <n...@li.nux.ro> wrote: > The more this is discussed the more I think we should stick with our VR. > > All these other options either seem unfinished or with incompatible > license. > > VyOS looks the most promising so far, it's a serious, mature project. > Adopting it though means we'll have to microservice our way out of it with > extra machines for DNS/USERDATA/etc, unless we can make VyOS serve those > too. Imho this adds complexity we should void. > > -- > Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! > > Nux! > www.nux.ro > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Will Stevens" <wstev...@cloudops.com> > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Sent: Thursday, 15 September, 2016 17:21:28 > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR > > > Ya, we would need to add a daemon for VPN as well. Load balancing is > > another aspect which we will need to consider if we went this route. > > Something like https://traefik.io/ could potentially be a good fit due > to > > its API driven configuration, but it may be more than what we need. > > > > We should probably try define which pieces make sense to be solved > together > > and which pieces would be best suited to be broken out. > > > > I think the network connectivity, routing and firewalling should probably > > all stay together since the majority of the tools we would potentially > use > > would handle all of that together in a single implementation. > > > > The password server and userdata seems like a good option for being > broken > > out and handled independently (and probably rewritten completely since > they > > currently have some issues). > > > > Load balancing is another that could warrant splitting out, but that > > depends on what direction we go and how we would be managing it. DHCP > and > > DNS are others which could go either way. > > > > If we do split out services, I think we should consolidate as much as we > > can into each service we break out. Ideally a network packet would never > > hit more than one, maybe two, services. I don't think we should be > > splitting services 'just because', I think we need a valid case for > > splitting any service out because it adds complexity. Our project is > > already complex enough, we need to avoid adding complexity unless it is > > really needed. > > > > Some more of my thoughts on this anyway... > > > > *Will STEVENS* > > Lead Developer > > > > *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts > > 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 > > w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_ > > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Simon Weller <swel...@ena.com> wrote: > > > >> I do agree with you that this probably isn't the right place the > password > >> service and user data. > >> > >> > >> Having said that, after taking a cursory look at the dev docs, it > doesn't > >> seem that difficult to add new daemons: https://opensnaproute.github. > >> io/docs/developer.html#creating-new-component > >> > >> <https://opensnaproute.github.io/docs/developer.html# > >> creating-new-component> > >> > >> > >> They've definitely build it with a microservices architecture in mind, > so > >> each individual feature is abstracted into it's own small daemon > process. > >> We could just create a daemon for the password server and the userdata > >> components if we really had to. > >> > >> > >> - Si > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> From: williamstev...@gmail.com <williamstev...@gmail.com> on behalf of > >> Will Stevens <wstev...@cloudops.com> > >> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 9:17 AM > >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR > >> > >> A big part of why I know about it is because it is written in Go. :P > >> > >> Yes, it is definitely interesting for the routing and traffic handling > >> aspects of the VR. We will likely have to rethink some of the pieces a > >> little bit like the password server and userdata if we are to adopt a > >> different VR approach. This is where I think some of JohnB and > Chiradeep's > >> ideas make sense. In many ways, it does not make sense for the device > >> handling routing and network traffic to also be responsible for > passwords > >> and userdata. > >> > >> *Will STEVENS* > >> Lead Developer > >> > >> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts > >> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 > >> w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_ > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Simon Weller <swel...@ena.com> wrote: > >> > >> > I hadn't heard of Flexswitch until you mentioned it. It looks pretty > >> cool! > >> > It even supports ONIE install. > >> > > >> > To be honest, the ipsec feature could be added, or we could offload > it to > >> > separate vm if we needed to. The fact it is so feature rich from a > >> routing > >> > perspective (and all API driven) is really nice. > >> > > >> > > >> > Based on the roadmap, it looks like they plan to also support > >> capabilities > >> > such as BGP-MPLS based L3VPN, EVPN, VPLS in the future. This will be > huge > >> > for our carrier community that rely on these technologies to do > private > >> > gateway and inter-VPC interconnections today. We handle this stuff on > our > >> > ASRs right now with a vlan interconnect into the VR. Being able to do > >> MPLS > >> > all the way to the VR would be awesome. > >> > > >> > > >> > It also seems to be written in GO (a language here at ENA we know very > >> > well). > >> > > >> > > >> > - Si > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > ________________________________ > >> > From: Will Stevens <williamstev...@gmail.com> > >> > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 7:06 AM > >> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > >> > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR > >> > > >> > Ya. I don't think it covers our whole use case, but what it does > cover is > >> > all api driven... > >> > > >> > On Sep 15, 2016 1:48 AM, "Marty Godsey" <ma...@gonsource.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Though I don’t see VPN in Snaproute.. Makes sense since it was not > >> > > intended to do IPSec. > >> > > > >> > > It seems as though VyOS is starting to look like the best option. > >> > > > >> > > Regards, > >> > > Marty Godsey > >> > > nSource Solutions > >> > > > >> > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > From: williamstev...@gmail.com [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] On > >> > > Behalf Of Will Stevens > >> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 11:06 PM > >> > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > >> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR > >> > > > >> > > Or we could go completely crazy and go with something like > FlexSwitch > >> > from > >> > > SnapRoute > >> > > - http://www.snaproute.com/ > >> > > - https://opensnaproute.github.io/docs/apis.html > >> > > > >> > > *Will STEVENS* > >> > > Lead Developer > >> > > > >> > > *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts > >> > > 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* > tw > >> > > @CloudOps_ > >> > > > >> > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Will Stevens < > wstev...@cloudops.com> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > I tend to agree with Syed and Marty. I am not sure what problems > are > >> > > > solved by splitting up the function of the VR into a bunch of > >> separate > >> > > > services. As Syed points out, the complexity added is > non-trivial. > >> > > > We now have to manage all the intercontainer networking as well as > >> the > >> > > > orchestrated ACS networking. > >> > > > > >> > > > VyOS is interesting to me because it covers the majority of our > use > >> > > > case with a single unified control plane. It also has good > support > >> > > > for extending features we care about, like IPv6, VXLAN, VRRP, > >> > > > transactions, etc... > >> > > > > >> > > > *Will STEVENS* > >> > > > Lead Developer > >> > > > > >> > > > *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts > >> > > > 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com > *|* > >> tw > >> > > > @CloudOps_ > >> > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Syed Ahmed <sah...@cloudops.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > >> Agree with Marty, adding Docker containers to the picture > although > >> > > >> can make the VR more flexible but the added complexity is just > not > >> > > >> worth it. Not to mention we would need to take care of networking > >> > > >> each container manually and given that our iptable rules are very > >> > > >> unstable at the moment I don't see a big value add. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Vyos looks like a better solution to me. I know that it does not > >> > > >> provide an api but it does fit the bill quite well otherwise. I > >> > > >> specially like the fact that it has a transaction based model and > >> you > >> > > >> can rollback changes if something goes wrong. > >> > > >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:06 PM Marty Godsey < > ma...@gonsource.com> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > Licensing aside, I think splitting the various functions into > >> > > >> > containers is not a good route either. This will force users to > >> > > >> > have to maintain > >> > > >> and > >> > > >> > use containers and adds complexity to the networking aspects of > >> ACS. > >> > > >> > Complexity decreases stability. Now I understand the argument > that > >> > > >> > a monolithic approach also brings its own set of issues but it > >> also > >> > > >> > simplifies it. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > > >> > Marty Godsey > >> > > >> > nSource Solutions > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > > >> > From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:chirade...@gmail.com] > >> > > >> > Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 5:37 PM > >> > > >> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > >> > > >> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > I rather doubt that the Cloudrouter will fit the needs of the > >> > > >> > CloudStack project > >> > > >> > - it is AGPL licensed. Many enterprises will not touch > anything > >> > > >> > that > >> > > >> has > >> > > >> > AGPL > >> > > >> > - the github repo shows rather infrequent updates. Quite > likely > >> > > >> > they aren't considering the use cases of the CloudStack > community > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > I'd back John B's comments on disaggregating the VR. Split it > into > >> > > >> > many docker containers > >> > > >> > - password server > >> > > >> > - userdata server > >> > > >> > - DHCP / DNS > >> > > >> > - s2s VPN > >> > > >> > - RA VPN > >> > > >> > - intra-VPC routing and ACL > >> > > >> > - Port forwarding + NAT > >> > > >> > - FW > >> > > >> > - LB (public) > >> > > >> > - LB (internal), > >> > > >> > - secondary storage > >> > > >> > - agent > >> > > >> > Glue them together with docker compose files (one per use > case - > >> > > >> > basic zone, isolated, VPC, SSVM, etc). > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > The VR image then becomes a JeOS + docker. You can test each of > >> the > >> > > >> > components independently and fixing one bug in the field (say > >> DHCP) > >> > > >> > is hitless to the other components. You don't need to build > >> > > >> > per-hypervisor VRs. You could even run on baremetal. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Along the way you need to figure out how to > >> > > >> > - make the traffic traverse the containers that are needed to > be > >> > > >> > traversed (in most cases just 1) > >> > > >> > - bootstrap the router (how does it find its compose file? > where > >> > > >> > is the > >> > > >> > registry?) > >> > > >> > - rethink the command and control of the VR functions. SSH > works, > >> > > >> > but something more declarative, idempotent should be explored. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > As you do this, it becomes clearer which of the functions can > be > >> > > >> > substituted by for example CloudRouter. Command and Control of > the > >> > > >> docker > >> > > >> > containers can be moved out to another container. Etc. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:59 AM, Marty Godsey > >> > > >> > <ma...@gonsource.com> > >> > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > This one does look nice. My biggest concern is the lack of > >> > > >> > > VXLANs. It seems that any of the ones we mentioned do not > have > >> an > >> > > >> > > API so we may be stuck at the SSH method. > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > Regards, > >> > > >> > > Marty Godsey > >> > > >> > > nSource Solutions > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > >> > > From: Abhinandan Prateek > >> > > >> > > [mailto:abhinandan.prat...@shapeblue.com] > >> > > >> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 2:26 AM > >> > > >> > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > >> > > >> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > Cloudrouter looks promising. These have potential to save > future > >> > > >> > > engineering effort for example on ipv6 routing, OSPF etc. > >> > > >> > > And the best part is they come with test automation > framework. > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > On 13/09/16, 4:22 PM, "Jayapal Uradi" > >> > > >> > > <jayapal.ur...@accelerite.com> > >> > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >Hi, > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >Instead of replacing the VR in first place we should add > >> > > >> > > >VyOS/cloudrouter > >> > > >> > > as provider. Once it is stable, network offerings (on > upgrade) > >> > > >> > > can be updated to use it and we can drop the VR if we want at > >> > > >> > > that release > >> > > >> > onwards. > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >VR is stabilized over a period of time and some of them are > >> > > >> > > >running > >> > > >> > > without issues. When we replicate the ACS VR features in new > >> > > >> > > solution it takes some to find the missing pieces (hidden > bugs). > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >Thanks, > >> > > >> > > >Jayapal > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sep 13, 2016, at 2:52 PM, Nux! < > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> n...@li.nux.ro> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> Hi, > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> I like the idea. > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> Cloudrouter looks really promising, I'm not too keen on > VyOS > >> > > >> > > >> (it > >> > > >> > > doesn't have a proper http api etc). > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> -- > >> > > >> > > >> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> Nux! > >> > > >> > > >> www.nux.ro > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > abhinandan.prat...@shapeblue.com > >> > > >> > > www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> > >> > > >> > > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK > @shapeblue > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> > > >> > > >>> From: "Will Stevens" <williamstev...@gmail.com> > >> > > >> > > >>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > >> > > >> > > >>> Sent: Monday, 12 September, 2016 21:20:11 > >> > > >> > > >>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > >>> *Disclaimer:* This is a thought experiment and should be > >> > > >> > > >>> treated as > >> > > >> > > such. > >> > > >> > > >>> Please weigh in with the good and bad of this idea... > >> > > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> > > >>> A couple of us have been discussing the idea of > potentially > >> > > >> > > >>> replacing the ACS VR with the VyOS [1] (Open Source > Vyatta > >> > VM). > >> > > >> > > >>> There may be a license issue because I think it is > licensed > >> > > >> > > >>> under GPL, but for the sake of discussion, let's assume > we > >> > > >> > > >>> can overcome any > >> > > >> > > license issues. > >> > > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> > > >>> I have spent some time recently with the VyOS and I have > to > >> > > >> > > >>> admit, I was pretty impressed. It is simple and > intuitive > >> > > >> > > >>> and it gives you a lot more options for auditing the > >> > > configuration etc... > >> > > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> > > >>> Items of potential interest: > >> > > >> > > >>> - Clean up our current VR script spaghetti to a simpler > more > >> > > >> > > >>> auditable configuration workflow. > >> > > >> > > >>> - Gives a cleaner path for IPv6 support. > >> > > >> > > >>> - Handles VPN configuration via the same configuration > >> > > interface. > >> > > >> > > >>> - Support for OSPF & BGP. > >> > > >> > > >>> - VPN support through OpenVPN & StrongSwan. > >> > > >> > > >>> - Easily supports HA (redundant routers) through VRRP. > >> > > >> > > >>> - VXLAN support. > >> > > >> > > >>> - Transaction based changes to the VR with rollback on > >> error. > >> > > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> > > >>> Items that could be difficult to solve: > >> > > >> > > >>> - Userdata password reset workflow and implementation. > >> > > >> > > >>> - Upgrade process. > >> > > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> > > >>> The VyOS is not the only option if we were to consider > this > >> > > >> approach. > >> > > >> > > >>> Another option, which I don't know as well, would be > >> > > >> > > >>> CloudRouter (AGPL > >> > > >> > > >>> license) [2] which is purely API driven. > >> > > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> > > >>> Anyway, would love to hear your thoughts... > >> > > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> > > >>> Will > >> > > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> > > >>> [1] https://vyos.io/ > >> > > >> > > >>> [2] https://cloudrouter.org/ > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >DISCLAIMER > >> > > >> > > >========== > >> > > >> > > >This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential > information > >> > > >> > > >which is > >> > > >> > > the property of Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business. > It is > >> > > >> > > intended only for the use of the individual or entity to > which > >> it > >> > > >> > > is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are > not > >> > > >> > > authorized to read, retain, copy, print, distribute or use > this > >> > > >> > > message. If you have received this communication in error, > >> please > >> > > >> > > notify the sender and delete all copies of this message. > >> > > >> > > Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business does not accept any > >> > > >> > > liability for virus > >> > > >> > infected mails. > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > >
