Hi Wido, Your proposal is to sacrifice ability to reassign IPv6 to instance, have internal domain prefix, and list/db in ACS what IPv6 has been assigned to what instance and go with RA and SLAAC. For route signaling to switch use BGP/OSPFv3 or manual pre-creation.
Option with RA and managed flag that DHCPv6 is in use to support preset information and ability to create route information from ACS is not an option as DHCPv6 its failing? On 2021/07/16 15:17:42, Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> wrote: > > > Op 16-07-2021 om 16:42 schreef Hean Seng: > > Hi Wido, > > > > In current setup, each Cloudstack have own VR, so in this new IPv6 subnet > > allocation , each VR (which have Frr) will need to have peering with ISP > > router (and either BGP or Static Route) , and there is 1000 Acocunts, it > > will 1000 BGP session with ISP router , Am I right for this ? or I > > understand wrong . > > > > Yes, that is correct. A /56 would also be sufficient or a /60 which is > enough to allocate a few /64 subnets. > > 1000 BGP connections isn't really a problem for a proper router at the > ISP. OSPF(v3) would be better, but as I said that's poorly supported. > > The ISP could also install 1000 static routes, but that means that the > ISP's router needs to have those configured. > > http://docs.frrouting.org/en/latest/ospf6d.html > (While looking up this URL I see that Frr recently put in a lot of work > in OSPFv3, seems better now) > > > I understand IPv6 is different then IPv4, and in IPv6 it suppose each > > devices have own IP. It just how to realize in easy way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 8:17 PM Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> Op 16-07-2021 om 05:54 schreef Hean Seng: > >>> Hi Wido, > >>> > >>> My initial thought is not like this, it is the /48 at ISP router, and > >> /64 > >>> subnet assign to AdvanceZoneVR, AdvanceZoneVR responsible is > >>> distribule IPv6 ip (from the assigned /64 sunet) to VM, and not routing > >>> the traffic, in the VM that get the IPv6 IP will default route to ISP > >>> router as gw. It can may be a bridge over via Advancezone-VR. > >>> > >> > >> How would you bridge this? That sounds like NAT? > >> > >> IPv6 is meant to be routed. Not to be translated or bridged in any way. > >> > >> The way a made the drawing is exactly how IPv6 should work in a VPC > >> environment. > >> > >> Traffic flows through the VR where it can do firewalling of the traffic. > >> > >>> However, If do as the way described in the drawing, then i suppose will > >> be > >>> another kind of virtual router going to introduce , to get hold the /48 > >> in > >>> this virtual router right ? > >>> > >> > >> It can be the same VR. But keep in mind that IPv6 != IPv4. > >> > >> The VR will get Frr as a new daemon which can talk BGP with the upper > >> network to route traffic. > >> > >>> After this, The Advance Zone, NAT's VR will peer with this new IPv6 VR > >>> for getting the IPv6 /64 prefix ? > >>> > >> > >> IPv4 will be behind NAT, but IPv6 will not be behind NAT. > >> > >>> If do in this way, then I guess you just only need Static route, with > >>> peering ip both end as one /48 can have a lot of /64 on it. And > >> hardware > >>> budgeting for new IPv6-VR will become very important, as all traffic will > >>> need to pass over it . > >>> > >> > >> Routing or NAT is the same for the VR. You don't need a very beefy VR > >> for this. > >> > >>> It will be like > >>> > >>> ISP Router ------ > (new IPV6-VR ) ---- > AdvanceZone-VR ----> VM > >>> > >>> Relationship of (new IPv6 VR) and AdvanceZone-VR , may be considering on > >>> OSPF instead of BGP , otherwise few thousand of AdvanceZone-VR wil have > >>> few thousand of BGP session. on new-IPv6-VR > >>> > >>> Also, I suppose we cannot do ISP router. -->. Advancezone VR direct, , > >>> otherwise ISP router will be full of /64 prefix route either on BGP( Many > >>> BGP Session) , or Many Static route . If few thousand account, ti will > >>> be few thousand of BGP session with ISP router or few thousand static > >> route > >>> which is not possible . > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 10:47 PM Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> But you still need routing. See the attached PNG (and draw.io XML). > >>>> > >>>> You need to route the /48 subnet TO the VR which can then route it to > >>>> the Virtual Networks behind the VR. > >>>> > >>>> There is no other way then routing with either BGP or a Static route. > >>>> > >>>> Wido > >>>> > >>>> Op 15-07-2021 om 12:39 schreef Hean Seng: > >>>>> Or explain like this : > >>>>> > >>>>> 1) Cloudstack generate list of /64 subnet from /48 that Network admin > >>>>> assigned to Cloudstack > >>>>> 2) Cloudsack allocated the subnet (that generated from step1) to > >> Virtual > >>>>> Router, one Virtual Router have one subniet /64 > >>>>> 3) Virtual Router allocate single IPv6 (within the range of /64 > >>>>> allocated to VR) to VM > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 6:25 PM Hean Seng <heans...@gmail.com > >>>>> <mailto:heans...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Wido, > >>>>> > >>>>> I think the /48 is at physical router as gateway , and subnet of > >> /64 > >>>>> at VR of Cloudstack. Cloudstack only keep which /48 prefix and > >>>>> vlan information of this /48 to be later split the /64. to VR. > >>>>> > >>>>> And the instances is getting singe IPv6 of /64 IP. The VR is > >>>>> getting /64. The default gateway shall goes to /48 of physical > >>>>> router ip . In this case ,does not need any BGP router . > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Similar concept as IPv4 : > >>>>> > >>>>> /48 subnet of IPv6 is equivalent to current /24 subnet of IPv4 > >> that > >>>>> created in Network. > >>>>> and /64 of IPv6 is equivalent to single IP of IPv4 assign to VM. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 5:31 PM Wido den Hollander < > >> w...@widodh.nl > >>>>> <mailto:w...@widodh.nl>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Op 14-07-2021 om 16:44 schreef Hean Seng: > >>>>> > Hi > >>>>> > > >>>>> > I replied in another thread, i think do not need implement > >>>>> BGP or OSPF, > >>>>> > that would be complicated . > >>>>> > > >>>>> > We only need assign IPv6 's /64 prefix to Virtual Router > >>>>> (VR) in NAT > >>>>> > zone, and the VR responsible to deliver single IPv6 to VM > >> via > >>>>> DHCP6. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > In VR, you need to have Default IPv6 route to Physical > >>>>> Router's /48. IP > >>>>> > as IPv6 Gateway. Thens should be done . > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Example : > >>>>> > Physical Router Interface > >>>>> > IPv6 IP : 2000:aaaa::1/48 > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Cloudstack virtual router : 2000:aaaa:200:201::1/64 with > >>>>> default ipv6 > >>>>> > route to router ip 2000:aaaa::1 > >>>>> > and Clodustack Virtual router dhcp allocate IP to VM , and > >>>>> VM will have > >>>>> > default route to VR. IPv6 2000:aaaa:200:201::1 > >>>>> > > >>>>> > So in cloudstack need to allow user to enter , IPv6 > >>>>> gwateway , and > >>>>> > the /48 Ipv6 prefix , then it will self allocate the /64 > >> ip > >>>>> to the VR , > >>>>> > and maintain make sure not ovelap allocation > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>>> But NAT is truly not the solution with IPv6. IPv6 is supposed > >> to > >>>> be > >>>>> routable. In addition you should avoid DHCPv6 as much as > >>>>> possible as > >>>>> that's not really the intended use-case for address allocation > >>>>> with IPv6. > >>>>> > >>>>> In order to route an /48 IPv6 subnet to the VR you have a few > >>>>> possibilities: > >>>>> > >>>>> - Static route from the upperlying routers which are outside > >> of > >>>>> CloudStack > >>>>> - BGP > >>>>> - OSPFv3 (broken in most cases!) > >>>>> - DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation > >>>>> > >>>>> BGP and/or Static routes are still the best bet here. > >>>>> > >>>>> So what you do is that you tell CloudStack that you will route > >>>>> 2001:db8::/48 to the VR, the VR can then use that to split it > >> up > >>>>> into > >>>>> multiple /64 subnets going towards the instances: > >>>>> > >>>>> - 2001:db8::/64 > >>>>> - 2001:db8:1::/64 > >>>>> - 2001:db8:2::/64 > >>>>> ... > >>>>> - 2001:db8:f::/64 > >>>>> > >>>>> And go on. > >>>>> > >>>>> In case of BGP you indeed have to tell the VR a few things: > >>>>> > >>>>> - It's own AS number > >>>>> - The peer's address(es) > >>>>> > >>>>> With FRR you can simply say: > >>>>> > >>>>> neighbor 2001:db8:4fa::179 remote-as external > >>>>> > >>>>> The /48 you need to have at the VR anyway in case of either a > >>>>> static > >>>>> route or BGP. > >>>>> > >>>>> We just need to add a NullRoute on the VR for that /48 so that > >>>>> traffic > >>>>> will not be routed to the upper gateway in case of the VR > >> can't > >>>>> find a > >>>>> route. > >>>>> > >>>>> Wido > >>>>> > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 8:55 PM Alex Mattioli > >>>>> > <alex.matti...@shapeblue.com > >>>>> <mailto:alex.matti...@shapeblue.com> > >>>>> <mailto:alex.matti...@shapeblue.com > >>>>> <mailto:alex.matti...@shapeblue.com>>> wrote: > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Hi Wido, > >>>>> > That's pretty much in line with our thoughts, thanks > >> for > >>>>> the input. > >>>>> > I believe we agree on the following points then: > >>>>> > > >>>>> > - FRR with BGP (no OSPF) > >>>>> > - Route /48 (or/56) down to the VR > >>>>> > - /64 per network > >>>>> > - SLACC for IP addressing > >>>>> > > >>>>> > I believe the next big question is then "on which level > >>>>> of ACS do we > >>>>> > manage AS numbers?". I see two options: > >>>>> > 1) Private AS number on a per-zone basis > >>>>> > 2) Root Admin assigned AS number on a domain/account > >> basis > >>>>> > 3) End-user driven AS number on a per network basis > >> (for > >>>>> bring your > >>>>> > own AS and IP scenario) > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Thoughts? > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Cheers > >>>>> > Alex > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > -----Original Message----- > >>>>> > From: Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl > >>>>> <mailto:w...@widodh.nl> <mailto:w...@widodh.nl > >>>>> <mailto:w...@widodh.nl>>> > >>>>> > Sent: 13 July 2021 15:08 > >>>>> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > >>>>> <mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > >>>>> <mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org > >>>>> <mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>>; > >>>>> > Alex Mattioli <alex.matti...@shapeblue.com > >>>>> <mailto:alex.matti...@shapeblue.com> > >>>>> > <mailto:alex.matti...@shapeblue.com > >>>>> <mailto:alex.matti...@shapeblue.com>>> > >>>>> > Cc: Wei Zhou <wei.z...@shapeblue.com > >>>>> <mailto:wei.z...@shapeblue.com> > >>>>> > <mailto:wei.z...@shapeblue.com > >>>>> <mailto:wei.z...@shapeblue.com>>>; Rohit Yadav > >>>>> > <rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com > >>>>> <mailto:rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com> > >>>>> <mailto:rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com > >>>>> <mailto:rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com>>>; > >>>>> > Gabriel Beims Bräscher <gabr...@pcextreme.nl > >>>>> <mailto:gabr...@pcextreme.nl> > >>>>> > <mailto:gabr...@pcextreme.nl <mailto: > >> gabr...@pcextreme.nl > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > Subject: Re: IPV6 in Isolated/VPC networks > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > On 7/7/21 1:16 PM, Alex Mattioli wrote: > >>>>> > > Hi all, > >>>>> > > @Wei Zhou<mailto:wei.z...@shapeblue.com > >>>>> <mailto:wei.z...@shapeblue.com> > >>>>> > <mailto:wei.z...@shapeblue.com > >>>>> <mailto:wei.z...@shapeblue.com>>> @Rohit > >>>>> > Yadav<mailto:rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com > >>>>> <mailto:rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com> > >>>>> > <mailto:rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com > >>>>> <mailto:rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com>>> and myself are > >>>>> investigating how > >>>>> > to enable IPV6 support on Isolated and VPC networks and > >>>>> would like > >>>>> > your input on it. > >>>>> > > At the moment we are looking at implementing FRR > >> with > >>>>> BGP (and > >>>>> > possibly OSPF) on the ACS VR. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > We are looking for requirements, recommendations, > >>>>> ideas, rants, > >>>>> > etc...etc... > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Ok! Here we go. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > I think that you mean that the VR will actually route > >> the > >>>>> IPv6 > >>>>> > traffic and for that you need to have a way of getting > >> a > >>>>> subnet > >>>>> > routed to the VR. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > BGP is probably you best bet here. Although OSPFv3 > >>>>> technically > >>>>> > supports this it is very badly implemented in Frr for > >>>>> example. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Now FRR is a very good router and one of the fancy > >>>>> features it > >>>>> > supports is BGP Unnumered. This allows for auto > >>>>> configuration of BGP > >>>>> > over a L2 network when both sides are sending Router > >>>>> Advertisements. > >>>>> > This is very easy for flexible BGP configurations where > >>>>> both sides > >>>>> > have dynamic IPs. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > What you want to do is that you get a /56, /48 or > >>>>> something which is > >>>>> > >/64 bits routed to the VR. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Now you can sub-segment this into separate /64 subnets. > >>>>> You don't > >>>>> > want to go smaller then a /64 is that prevents you from > >>>>> using SLAAC > >>>>> > for IPv6 address configuration. This is how it works > >> for > >>>>> Shared > >>>>> > Networks now in Basic and Advanced Zones. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > FRR can now also send out the Router Advertisements on > >>>>> the downlinks > >>>>> > sending out: > >>>>> > > >>>>> > - DNS servers > >>>>> > - DNS domain > >>>>> > - Prefix (/64) to be used > >>>>> > > >>>>> > There is no need for DHCPv6. You can calculate the IPv6 > >>>>> address the > >>>>> > VM will obtain by using the MAC and the prefix. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > So in short: > >>>>> > > >>>>> > - Using BGP you routed a /48 to the VR > >>>>> > - Now you split this into /64 subnets towards the > >>>>> isolated networks > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Wido > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Alex Mattioli > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > -- > >>>>> > Regards, > >>>>> > Hean Seng > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> Hean Seng > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> Hean Seng > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > >
