Our options become much better if we consider BSD based routers. Would that be on the table?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_router_and_firewall_distributions On 9/16/16 12:04 PM, Will Stevens wrote: > Ya, your points are all valid Simon. The lack of standard libraries to > handle a lot of the details is a problem. I don't think it is an > unsolvable problem, but if we spend the time to do that, will we have > something that will work for us for the next 5 years? This may be the > shortest path to getting us where we need to be for the time being. > > What is the best case scenario for the VR going forward which will last us > the next 5 years? Maybe we just clean up what we have to do a major > restructuring of the pieces and how they are implemented. We need to keep > in mind how maintainable this implementation is because that is going to be > key going forward IMO. > > > > *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 2:29 PM, Simon Weller <swel...@ena.com> wrote: > >> I think our other option is to take a real look at what it would take to >> fix the VR. In my opinion, a lot of the problems are related to the >> monolithic python code base and the fact nothing is actually separated. >> >> Secondly, the python scripts (and bash scripts) don't use any established >> libraries to complete tasks and instead shell out and run commands that are >> both hard to track and hard to parse on return. >> >> >> If we daemonized this, used a real api for Agent to VR communication, used >> common already existing libraries for the system service and network >> interactions and spent a bit of time separating out code into distinct >> modules, everything would behave a lot better. >> >> >> The pain and suffering is due to years and years of patches and constant >> shelling out to complete tasks in my opinion. If we spend time to rethink >> how we interact with the VR in general and we abstract the systems and >> networking stuff and use well known and stable libraries to do the work, >> the VR would be much easier to maintain. >> >> >> - Si >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Marty Godsey <ma...@gonsource.com> >> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 12:24 PM >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR >> >> So based upon this discussion would it be prudent to wait on VyOS 2.0? The >> current VR is giving us issues but would the time invested in another >> "solution" be wasted especially if by the time another option is chose, >> then coded, then tested, then implemented and right as that time happened >> to be when VyOS 2.0 is released. Of course you said they are just in the >> scoping range so this could still be a year or more out. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Regards, >> Marty Godsey >> nSource Solutions >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: williamstev...@gmail.com [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] On >> Behalf Of Will Stevens >> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 10:31 AM >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> Cc: dan...@baturin.org >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing the VR >> >> I just had a quick chat with a couple of the guys over on the VyOS chat. >> I have CC'ed one of them in case we have more licensing questions. >> >> So here is the status with the license "the code inherited from Vyatta and >> our modifications from it is GPLv2 (strict, not v2+). The config reading >> library is GPLv2 too, so anything that links to is is GPLv2. >> Some auxiliary components we made after the fork are more permissive, >> LGPLv2+ or MIT." >> >> They are currently in the process of scoping a redesign (VyOS 2.0), "we >> are planning a clean rewrite that will solve issues of the current config >> system". >> This will include the ability to configure via the API. >> >> If we have more questions for VyOS, they are very friendly and responsive, >> so we should be able to get answers. >> >> *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 9:37 AM, Syed Ahmed <sah...@cloudops.com> wrote: >> >>> I agree with Will Ilya. There are so many problems with the VR right now. >>> Most of the outages we've had recently have somehow involved the VR. >>> We set custom iptables rules on the VR which can and have easily gone >> wrong. >>> Openswan is broken, Strongswan replacement still needs to be tested. >>> VVRP with redundant router still needs work, and not to mention the >>> problems we will have when we introduce IPv6 into the whole picture. >>> >>> I think the spirit of the discussion is to rely on a 3rd party to do >>> the networking for us (eg VyOS) and have us handle just the >>> orchestration. All the problems that I've described have already been >>> solved in VyOS. We also get the advantage of a potential wider >>> community to fix and maintain the VR and given our current development >>> velocity, it think it totally makes sense to look for a 3rd party option. >>> >>> -Syed >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Will Stevens <wstev...@cloudops.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
