Sorry guys, I'll double post this to OpenStack Dev instead... My mistake...
On 11 February 2014 14:25, Martinx - ジェームズ <thiagocmarti...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hello Stackers! > > It is very nice to watch the OpenStack evolution in IPv6! Great job guys!! > > > I have another idea: > > "Floating IP" for IPv6, or just "Floating IPv6" > > > With IPv4, as we know, OpenStack have a feature called "Floating IP", > which is basically a 1-to-1 NAT rule (within tenant's Namespace q-router). > In IPv4 networks, we need this "Floating IP" attached to a Instance, to > be able to reach it from the Internet (*I don't like it*). But, what is > the use case for a "Floating IP" when you have *no NAT** (as it is with > IPv6)?! > > At first, when with IPv6, I was planning to disable the "Floating IP" > feature entirely, by removing it from Dashboard and from APIs (even for > IPv4, if FWaaS can in somehow, be able to manage q-router IPv4 NAT rules, > and not only the "iptables filter table") and, I just had an idea! > > For IPv6, the "Floating IP" can still be used to allocate more (and more) > IPs to a Instance BUT, instead of creating a NAT rule (like it is for > IPv4), it will configure the DNSMasq (or something like it) to provide more > IPv6 address per MAC / Instance. That way, we can virtually > allocate unlimited IPs (v6) for each Instance! > > It will be pretty cool to see the attached "Floating IPv6", literally > "floating around" the tenant subnet, appearing inside the Instances > itself (instead of inside the tenant's Namespace), so, we'll be able to see > it (the Floating IPv6) with "ip -6 address" command within the attached > Instance! > > The only problem I see with this is that, for IPv4, the allocated " > Floating IPs" come from the "External Network" (neutron / > --allocation-pool) and, for IPv6, it will come from the tenant's IPv6 subnet > itself... I think... Right?! > > --- > Why I want tons of IPv6 within each Instance? > > A.: Because we can! I mean, we can go back to the days when we had 1 > website per 1 public IP (i.e. using IP-Based Virtual Hosts with Apache - > I prefer this approach). > > Also, we can try to turn the "Floating IPv6", in some kind of "Floating > IPv6 Range", this way, we can for example, allocate millions of IPs per > Instance, like this in DHCPv6: "range6 2001:db8:1:1::1000 > 2001:db8:1:1000:1000;"... > --- > > NOTE: I prefer multiple IPs per Instance, instead of 1 IP per Instance, > when using VT, unless, of course, the Instances are based on Docker, so, > with it, I can easily see millions of tiny instances, each of it with its > own IPv6 address, without the overhead of virtualized environment. So, with > Docker, this "Floating IPv6 Range" doesn't seems to be useful... > > > * I know that there is NAT66 out there but, who is actually using it?! > I'll never use this thing. Personally I dislike NAT very much, mostly > because it breaks the end-to-end Internet connectivity, effectively kicking > you out from the real Internet, and it is just a workaround created to deal > with IPv4 exaustion. > > > BTW, please guys, let me know if this isn't the right place to post "ideas > for OpenStack / feature requests"... I don't want to bloat this list with > undesirable messages. > > > Best Regards, > Thiago Martins >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack