Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones

[Ron Wheeler]

Please propose a new network documentation page as part of this discussion.

If it  makes it more palatable to developers, we could rename the 
documentation to "Use Cases".


That would make it easier to discuss the real impact on users of what is 
being proposed.


The current network documentation is one of the biggest barriers to 
entry and generates a lot of the traffic in the forum.


Ron


On 06/07/2018 4:50 AM, Paul Angus wrote:

Sorry for being late to the party.

'in theory' couldn't we do away with the idea that 'advanced networking with 
security groups' is a type of zone and just allow the use of security groups in 
any network, instead of making people 'choose' up front.
I believe AWS allows the use of security groups in VPCs.  It seems a little 
'belt and braces', but I know of users who have looked to do it.



Kind regards,

Paul Angus

paul.an...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
   
  



-Original Message-
From: Wido den Hollander 
Sent: 19 June 2018 21:58
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones

Hi,

We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking and recently started to 
look into Advanced Networking with VLAN isolation and a shared network.

This provides (from what we can see) all the features Basic Networking 
provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData while the Hypervisor does 
the Security Grouping.

That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.

Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users as you can't simply 
migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we found out that it's possible by 
changing the database, but I wouldn't guarantee it works in every use-case. So 
doing this automatically during a upgrade would be difficult.

To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic Networking code for ever I 
would like to propose and discuss the matter of preventing the creation of new 
Basic Networking zones.

In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else statements in the code 
and it would make testing also easier as we have few things to test.

Most of the development also seems to go in the Advanced Networking direction.

We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced Shared Networks and that's 
progressing very good as well.

Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where we simplify the 
networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic Networking while keeping it alive 
for existing users?

Wido



--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102

RE: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones

[Paul Angus]

Sorry for being late to the party.

'in theory' couldn't we do away with the idea that 'advanced networking with 
security groups' is a type of zone and just allow the use of security groups in 
any network, instead of making people 'choose' up front.
I believe AWS allows the use of security groups in VPCs.  It seems a little 
'belt and braces', but I know of users who have looked to do it.



Kind regards,

Paul Angus

paul.an...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
  
 


-Original Message-
From: Wido den Hollander  
Sent: 19 June 2018 21:58
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones

Hi,

We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking and recently started to 
look into Advanced Networking with VLAN isolation and a shared network.

This provides (from what we can see) all the features Basic Networking 
provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData while the Hypervisor does 
the Security Grouping.

That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.

Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users as you can't simply 
migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we found out that it's possible by 
changing the database, but I wouldn't guarantee it works in every use-case. So 
doing this automatically during a upgrade would be difficult.

To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic Networking code for ever I 
would like to propose and discuss the matter of preventing the creation of new 
Basic Networking zones.

In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else statements in the code 
and it would make testing also easier as we have few things to test.

Most of the development also seems to go in the Advanced Networking direction.

We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced Shared Networks and that's 
progressing very good as well.

Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where we simplify the 
networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic Networking while keeping it alive 
for existing users?

Wido

Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones

[Wido den Hollander]

On 06/22/2018 08:04 AM, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> Good idea, but a lot of things supported in advanced zone with KVM may not be 
> supported in case of VMware, XenServer etc. The larger refactoring will need 
> to account for how in various places checks exists how behaviors are enforced 
> when the zone is basic or not, and what kind of impact will it have on 
> non-KVM users using basic zone (if any) along with having an upgrade path for 
> such users.
> 

I have no experience with VMWare nor XenServer, but doesn't Advanced
Networking with a Shared VLAN work the same on those?

> 
> If the overall functionality is retained and a seamless upgrade path can be 
> created a new major release 5.0 is not be necessary (that should be a 
> different thread with inputs from various stakeholders on various topics).
> 

A upgrade will be very difficult to convert a Basic Network to Advanced
as bridges on the HV need to be changed and this can vary per deployment.

> 
> Wrt support of the next Java version, we'll need to consider the distro 
> provided Java version for a long time Java8 will be supported [1] but newer 
> versions Java 9/10 onwards are short-term non-LTS releases, debian 
> testing/next don't even have openjdk-9/10 packages yet.
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/eol-135779.html
> 
> 
> - Rohit
> 
> <https://cloudstack.apache.org>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Wido den Hollander 
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 8:26:40 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones
> 
> For now I've created a Pull Request so we can have a discussion about it
> there: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2720
> 
> Wido
> 
> On 06/21/2018 02:34 PM, Gabriel Beims Bräscher wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> We have an empty page regarding 5.0 [1] in the Design documents section
>> [2]. It might be a good spot to sort out CloudStack 5.0 plans.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/5.0+Design+Documents
>> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Design
>>
>> 2018-06-21 5:58 GMT-03:00 Daan Hoogland :
>>
>>> well, that one is a good one to update, but there was a dedicated 5.0 page
>>> at some time. I think we can just use this from here on in and merge
>>> anything else in it when we find it ;)
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Rafael Weingärtner <
>>> rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This one [1]?
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Roadmap
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Daan Hoogland >>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Wido, there used to be a page on cwiki with plans for 5.0, I can not
>>> find
>>>>> it anymore but this should be added to it.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 6:42 PM, ilya musayev <
>>>>> ilya.mailing.li...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the simplicity of Basic Zone was - you can get away with 1
>>> VLAN
>>>>>> for everything (great for POC setup) where as Advanced Shared with
>>> VLAN
>>>>>> isolation requires several VLANs to get going.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How would we cover this use case?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:34 AM Tutkowski, Mike <
>>>>>> mike.tutkow...@netapp.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, yes, I agree with the list you provided, Wido. We might have
>>> to
>>>>>>> break “other fancy stuff” into more detail, though. ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/20/18, 12:32 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, Wido :) I missed that part.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/20/18, 5:03 AM, "Wido den Hollander" 
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 06/20/2018 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
>>>>>>> > If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good
>>> time
>>>> to
>>>>>>> bump CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones

[Rohit Yadav]

Good idea, but a lot of things supported in advanced zone with KVM may not be 
supported in case of VMware, XenServer etc. The larger refactoring will need to 
account for how in various places checks exists how behaviors are enforced when 
the zone is basic or not, and what kind of impact will it have on non-KVM users 
using basic zone (if any) along with having an upgrade path for such users.


If the overall functionality is retained and a seamless upgrade path can be 
created a new major release 5.0 is not be necessary (that should be a different 
thread with inputs from various stakeholders on various topics).


Wrt support of the next Java version, we'll need to consider the distro 
provided Java version for a long time Java8 will be supported [1] but newer 
versions Java 9/10 onwards are short-term non-LTS releases, debian testing/next 
don't even have openjdk-9/10 packages yet.


[1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/eol-135779.html


- Rohit

<https://cloudstack.apache.org>




From: Wido den Hollander 
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 8:26:40 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones

For now I've created a Pull Request so we can have a discussion about it
there: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2720

Wido

On 06/21/2018 02:34 PM, Gabriel Beims Bräscher wrote:
> +1
>
> We have an empty page regarding 5.0 [1] in the Design documents section
> [2]. It might be a good spot to sort out CloudStack 5.0 plans.
>
> [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/5.0+Design+Documents
> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Design
>
> 2018-06-21 5:58 GMT-03:00 Daan Hoogland :
>
>> well, that one is a good one to update, but there was a dedicated 5.0 page
>> at some time. I think we can just use this from here on in and merge
>> anything else in it when we find it ;)
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Rafael Weingärtner <
>> rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This one [1]?
>>>
>>> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Roadmap
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Daan Hoogland >>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wido, there used to be a page on cwiki with plans for 5.0, I can not
>> find
>>>> it anymore but this should be added to it.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 6:42 PM, ilya musayev <
>>>> ilya.mailing.li...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think the simplicity of Basic Zone was - you can get away with 1
>> VLAN
>>>>> for everything (great for POC setup) where as Advanced Shared with
>> VLAN
>>>>> isolation requires several VLANs to get going.
>>>>>
>>>>> How would we cover this use case?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:34 AM Tutkowski, Mike <
>>>>> mike.tutkow...@netapp.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, yes, I agree with the list you provided, Wido. We might have
>> to
>>>>>> break “other fancy stuff” into more detail, though. ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/20/18, 12:32 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, Wido :) I missed that part.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/20/18, 5:03 AM, "Wido den Hollander" 
>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/20/2018 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
>>>>>> > If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good
>> time
>>> to
>>>>>> bump CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what I said in my e-mail :-) But yes, I agree with
>> you,
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> might be a good time to bump it to 5.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With that we would:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
>>>>>> - Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
>>>>>> - Java 9?
>>>>>> - Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
>>>>>> - Other fancy stuff?
>>>>>> - Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How would that sound?
>>>>>>
>>>>&

Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones

[Wido den Hollander]

For now I've created a Pull Request so we can have a discussion about it
there: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2720

Wido

On 06/21/2018 02:34 PM, Gabriel Beims Bräscher wrote:
> +1
> 
> We have an empty page regarding 5.0 [1] in the Design documents section
> [2]. It might be a good spot to sort out CloudStack 5.0 plans.
> 
> [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/5.0+Design+Documents
> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Design
> 
> 2018-06-21 5:58 GMT-03:00 Daan Hoogland :
> 
>> well, that one is a good one to update, but there was a dedicated 5.0 page
>> at some time. I think we can just use this from here on in and merge
>> anything else in it when we find it ;)
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Rafael Weingärtner <
>> rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This one [1]?
>>>
>>> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Roadmap
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Daan Hoogland >>
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Wido, there used to be a page on cwiki with plans for 5.0, I can not
>> find
 it anymore but this should be added to it.

 On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 6:42 PM, ilya musayev <
 ilya.mailing.li...@gmail.com>
 wrote:

> I think the simplicity of Basic Zone was - you can get away with 1
>> VLAN
> for everything (great for POC setup) where as Advanced Shared with
>> VLAN
> isolation requires several VLANs to get going.
>
> How would we cover this use case?
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:34 AM Tutkowski, Mike <
> mike.tutkow...@netapp.com> wrote:
>
>> Also, yes, I agree with the list you provided, Wido. We might have
>> to
>> break “other fancy stuff” into more detail, though. ;)
>>
>> On 6/20/18, 12:32 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, Wido :) I missed that part.
>>
>> On 6/20/18, 5:03 AM, "Wido den Hollander" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/20/2018 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
>> > If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good
>> time
>>> to
>> bump CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
>> >
>>
>> That's what I said in my e-mail :-) But yes, I agree with
>> you,
>> this
>> might be a good time to bump it to 5.0
>>
>> With that we would:
>>
>> - Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
>> - Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
>> - Java 9?
>> - Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
>> - Other fancy stuff?
>> - Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly
>>
>> How would that sound?
>>
>> Wido
>>
>> >> On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Wido den Hollander <
>> w...@widodh.nl> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>> >>> I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even
>> though I myself
>> >>> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to
>>> give a
>> simple start
>> >>> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page
>> wizard for creating
>> >>> a shared network in advanced zone with security groups
>> and
>> userdata, great.
>> >>
>> >> That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter of
>> using
>> VLAN
>> >> isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because
>>> that's
>> basically
>> >> what Basic Networking does.
>> >>
>> >> It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM).
>> >>
>> >> If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri in
>>> Advanced
>> Networking
>> >> you get exactly the same result.
>> >>
>> >>> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple
>>> by
>> throwing at as
>> >>> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:
>> >>
>> >> I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to
>> the
 UI
>> though.
>> >> So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.
>> >>
>> >> Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements
>>> at
>> the right
>> >> location and you're done.
>> >>
>> >> Wido
>> >>
>> >>>
>>  On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander <
>> w...@widodh.nl> wrote:
>> 
>>  Hi,
>> 
>>  We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking
>>> and
>> recently
>>  started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN
 isolation
>> and a
>>  shared network.
>> 
>>  This provides (from what we can 

Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones

[Gabriel Beims Bräscher]

+1

We have an empty page regarding 5.0 [1] in the Design documents section
[2]. It might be a good spot to sort out CloudStack 5.0 plans.

[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/5.0+Design+Documents
[2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Design

2018-06-21 5:58 GMT-03:00 Daan Hoogland :

> well, that one is a good one to update, but there was a dedicated 5.0 page
> at some time. I think we can just use this from here on in and merge
> anything else in it when we find it ;)
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Rafael Weingärtner <
> rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This one [1]?
> >
> > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Roadmap
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Daan Hoogland  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Wido, there used to be a page on cwiki with plans for 5.0, I can not
> find
> > > it anymore but this should be added to it.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 6:42 PM, ilya musayev <
> > > ilya.mailing.li...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think the simplicity of Basic Zone was - you can get away with 1
> VLAN
> > > > for everything (great for POC setup) where as Advanced Shared with
> VLAN
> > > > isolation requires several VLANs to get going.
> > > >
> > > > How would we cover this use case?
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:34 AM Tutkowski, Mike <
> > > > mike.tutkow...@netapp.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Also, yes, I agree with the list you provided, Wido. We might have
> to
> > > >> break “other fancy stuff” into more detail, though. ;)
> > > >>
> > > >> On 6/20/18, 12:32 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" 
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Sorry, Wido :) I missed that part.
> > > >>
> > > >> On 6/20/18, 5:03 AM, "Wido den Hollander" 
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On 06/20/2018 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
> > > >> > If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good
> time
> > to
> > > >> bump CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> That's what I said in my e-mail :-) But yes, I agree with
> you,
> > > >> this
> > > >> might be a good time to bump it to 5.0
> > > >>
> > > >> With that we would:
> > > >>
> > > >> - Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
> > > >> - Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
> > > >> - Java 9?
> > > >> - Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
> > > >> - Other fancy stuff?
> > > >> - Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly
> > > >>
> > > >> How would that sound?
> > > >>
> > > >> Wido
> > > >>
> > > >> >> On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Wido den Hollander <
> > > >> w...@widodh.nl> wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>> On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> > > >> >>> I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even
> > > >> though I myself
> > > >> >>> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to
> > give a
> > > >> simple start
> > > >> >>> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page
> > > >> wizard for creating
> > > >> >>> a shared network in advanced zone with security groups
> and
> > > >> userdata, great.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter of
> using
> > > >> VLAN
> > > >> >> isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because
> > that's
> > > >> basically
> > > >> >> what Basic Networking does.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM).
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri in
> > Advanced
> > > >> Networking
> > > >> >> you get exactly the same result.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple
> > by
> > > >> throwing at as
> > > >> >>> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to
> the
> > > UI
> > > >> though.
> > > >> >> So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements
> > at
> > > >> the right
> > > >> >> location and you're done.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Wido
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >>  On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander <
> > > >> w...@widodh.nl> wrote:
> > > >> 
> > > >>  Hi,
> > > >> 
> > > >>  We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking
> > and
> > > >> recently
> > > >>  started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN
> > > isolation
> > > >> and a
> > > >>  shared network.
> > > >> 
> > > >>  This provides (from what we can see) all the features
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones

[Daan Hoogland]

well, that one is a good one to update, but there was a dedicated 5.0 page
at some time. I think we can just use this from here on in and merge
anything else in it when we find it ;)

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Rafael Weingärtner <
rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This one [1]?
>
> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Roadmap
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Daan Hoogland 
> wrote:
>
> > Wido, there used to be a page on cwiki with plans for 5.0, I can not find
> > it anymore but this should be added to it.
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 6:42 PM, ilya musayev <
> > ilya.mailing.li...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I think the simplicity of Basic Zone was - you can get away with 1 VLAN
> > > for everything (great for POC setup) where as Advanced Shared with VLAN
> > > isolation requires several VLANs to get going.
> > >
> > > How would we cover this use case?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:34 AM Tutkowski, Mike <
> > > mike.tutkow...@netapp.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Also, yes, I agree with the list you provided, Wido. We might have to
> > >> break “other fancy stuff” into more detail, though. ;)
> > >>
> > >> On 6/20/18, 12:32 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Sorry, Wido :) I missed that part.
> > >>
> > >> On 6/20/18, 5:03 AM, "Wido den Hollander"  wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 06/20/2018 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
> > >> > If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good time
> to
> > >> bump CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> That's what I said in my e-mail :-) But yes, I agree with you,
> > >> this
> > >> might be a good time to bump it to 5.0
> > >>
> > >> With that we would:
> > >>
> > >> - Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
> > >> - Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
> > >> - Java 9?
> > >> - Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
> > >> - Other fancy stuff?
> > >> - Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly
> > >>
> > >> How would that sound?
> > >>
> > >> Wido
> > >>
> > >> >> On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Wido den Hollander <
> > >> w...@widodh.nl> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> > >> >>> I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even
> > >> though I myself
> > >> >>> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to
> give a
> > >> simple start
> > >> >>> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page
> > >> wizard for creating
> > >> >>> a shared network in advanced zone with security groups and
> > >> userdata, great.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter of using
> > >> VLAN
> > >> >> isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because
> that's
> > >> basically
> > >> >> what Basic Networking does.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM).
> > >> >>
> > >> >> If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri in
> Advanced
> > >> Networking
> > >> >> you get exactly the same result.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple
> by
> > >> throwing at as
> > >> >>> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to the
> > UI
> > >> though.
> > >> >> So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements
> at
> > >> the right
> > >> >> location and you're done.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Wido
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>
> > >>  On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander <
> > >> w...@widodh.nl> wrote:
> > >> 
> > >>  Hi,
> > >> 
> > >>  We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking
> and
> > >> recently
> > >>  started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN
> > isolation
> > >> and a
> > >>  shared network.
> > >> 
> > >>  This provides (from what we can see) all the features
> Basic
> > >> Networking
> > >>  provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData while
> > the
> > >> Hypervisor
> > >>  does the Security Grouping.
> > >> 
> > >>  That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.
> > >> 
> > >>  Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users as
> > >> you can't
> > >>  simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we found
> > >> out that it's
> > >>  possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't
> guarantee
> > >> it works in
> > >> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones

[Rafael Weingärtner]

This one [1]?

[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Roadmap

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Daan Hoogland 
wrote:

> Wido, there used to be a page on cwiki with plans for 5.0, I can not find
> it anymore but this should be added to it.
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 6:42 PM, ilya musayev <
> ilya.mailing.li...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I think the simplicity of Basic Zone was - you can get away with 1 VLAN
> > for everything (great for POC setup) where as Advanced Shared with VLAN
> > isolation requires several VLANs to get going.
> >
> > How would we cover this use case?
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:34 AM Tutkowski, Mike <
> > mike.tutkow...@netapp.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Also, yes, I agree with the list you provided, Wido. We might have to
> >> break “other fancy stuff” into more detail, though. ;)
> >>
> >> On 6/20/18, 12:32 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sorry, Wido :) I missed that part.
> >>
> >> On 6/20/18, 5:03 AM, "Wido den Hollander"  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 06/20/2018 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
> >> > If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good time to
> >> bump CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
> >> >
> >>
> >> That's what I said in my e-mail :-) But yes, I agree with you,
> >> this
> >> might be a good time to bump it to 5.0
> >>
> >> With that we would:
> >>
> >> - Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
> >> - Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
> >> - Java 9?
> >> - Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
> >> - Other fancy stuff?
> >> - Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly
> >>
> >> How would that sound?
> >>
> >> Wido
> >>
> >> >> On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Wido den Hollander <
> >> w...@widodh.nl> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>> On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> >> >>> I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even
> >> though I myself
> >> >>> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to give a
> >> simple start
> >> >>> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page
> >> wizard for creating
> >> >>> a shared network in advanced zone with security groups and
> >> userdata, great.
> >> >>
> >> >> That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter of using
> >> VLAN
> >> >> isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because that's
> >> basically
> >> >> what Basic Networking does.
> >> >>
> >> >> It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM).
> >> >>
> >> >> If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri in Advanced
> >> Networking
> >> >> you get exactly the same result.
> >> >>
> >> >>> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple by
> >> throwing at as
> >> >>> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:
> >> >>
> >> >> I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to the
> UI
> >> though.
> >> >> So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.
> >> >>
> >> >> Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements at
> >> the right
> >> >> location and you're done.
> >> >>
> >> >> Wido
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >>  On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander <
> >> w...@widodh.nl> wrote:
> >> 
> >>  Hi,
> >> 
> >>  We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking and
> >> recently
> >>  started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN
> isolation
> >> and a
> >>  shared network.
> >> 
> >>  This provides (from what we can see) all the features Basic
> >> Networking
> >>  provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData while
> the
> >> Hypervisor
> >>  does the Security Grouping.
> >> 
> >>  That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.
> >> 
> >>  Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users as
> >> you can't
> >>  simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we found
> >> out that it's
> >>  possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't guarantee
> >> it works in
> >>  every use-case. So doing this automatically during a
> upgrade
> >> would be
> >>  difficult.
> >> 
> >>  To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic Networking
> >> code for ever
> >>  I would like to propose and discuss the matter of
> preventing
> >> the
> >>  creation of new Basic Networking zones.
> >> 
> >>  In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else
> >> statements in the
> >>  code and it would make testing also easier as 

Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones

[Daan Hoogland]

Wido, there used to be a page on cwiki with plans for 5.0, I can not find
it anymore but this should be added to it.

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 6:42 PM, ilya musayev 
wrote:

> I think the simplicity of Basic Zone was - you can get away with 1 VLAN
> for everything (great for POC setup) where as Advanced Shared with VLAN
> isolation requires several VLANs to get going.
>
> How would we cover this use case?
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:34 AM Tutkowski, Mike <
> mike.tutkow...@netapp.com> wrote:
>
>> Also, yes, I agree with the list you provided, Wido. We might have to
>> break “other fancy stuff” into more detail, though. ;)
>>
>> On 6/20/18, 12:32 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, Wido :) I missed that part.
>>
>> On 6/20/18, 5:03 AM, "Wido den Hollander"  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/20/2018 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
>> > If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good time to
>> bump CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
>> >
>>
>> That's what I said in my e-mail :-) But yes, I agree with you,
>> this
>> might be a good time to bump it to 5.0
>>
>> With that we would:
>>
>> - Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
>> - Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
>> - Java 9?
>> - Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
>> - Other fancy stuff?
>> - Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly
>>
>> How would that sound?
>>
>> Wido
>>
>> >> On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Wido den Hollander <
>> w...@widodh.nl> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>> >>> I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even
>> though I myself
>> >>> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to give a
>> simple start
>> >>> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page
>> wizard for creating
>> >>> a shared network in advanced zone with security groups and
>> userdata, great.
>> >>
>> >> That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter of using
>> VLAN
>> >> isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because that's
>> basically
>> >> what Basic Networking does.
>> >>
>> >> It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM).
>> >>
>> >> If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri in Advanced
>> Networking
>> >> you get exactly the same result.
>> >>
>> >>> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple by
>> throwing at as
>> >>> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:
>> >>
>> >> I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to the UI
>> though.
>> >> So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.
>> >>
>> >> Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements at
>> the right
>> >> location and you're done.
>> >>
>> >> Wido
>> >>
>> >>>
>>  On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander <
>> w...@widodh.nl> wrote:
>> 
>>  Hi,
>> 
>>  We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking and
>> recently
>>  started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN isolation
>> and a
>>  shared network.
>> 
>>  This provides (from what we can see) all the features Basic
>> Networking
>>  provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData while the
>> Hypervisor
>>  does the Security Grouping.
>> 
>>  That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.
>> 
>>  Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users as
>> you can't
>>  simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we found
>> out that it's
>>  possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't guarantee
>> it works in
>>  every use-case. So doing this automatically during a upgrade
>> would be
>>  difficult.
>> 
>>  To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic Networking
>> code for ever
>>  I would like to propose and discuss the matter of preventing
>> the
>>  creation of new Basic Networking zones.
>> 
>>  In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else
>> statements in the
>>  code and it would make testing also easier as we have few
>> things to test.
>> 
>>  Most of the development also seems to go in the Advanced
>> Networking
>>  direction.
>> 
>>  We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced Shared
>> Networks and
>>  that's progressing very good as well.
>> 
>>  Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where we
>> simplify the
>> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones

[Wido den Hollander]

On 06/20/2018 08:42 PM, ilya musayev wrote:
> I think the simplicity of Basic Zone was - you can get away with 1 VLAN
> for everything (great for POC setup) where as Advanced Shared with VLAN
> isolation requires several VLANs to get going.
> 

Does it? I have Advanced Networking running with just vlan://untagged as
a broadcast domain.

Using VLAN 0 would be exactly the same since that's the default VLAN.

> How would we cover this use case?
> 

By using 'untagged' as the VLAN number, don't we?

Wido

> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:34 AM Tutkowski, Mike
> mailto:mike.tutkow...@netapp.com>> wrote:
> 
> Also, yes, I agree with the list you provided, Wido. We might have
> to break “other fancy stuff” into more detail, though. ;)
> 
> On 6/20/18, 12:32 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike"  > wrote:
> 
>     Sorry, Wido :) I missed that part.
> 
>     On 6/20/18, 5:03 AM, "Wido den Hollander"  > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>         On 06/20/2018 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
>         > If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good
> time to bump CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
>         >
> 
>         That's what I said in my e-mail :-) But yes, I agree with
> you, this
>         might be a good time to bump it to 5.0
> 
>         With that we would:
> 
>         - Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
>         - Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
>         - Java 9?
>         - Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
>         - Other fancy stuff?
>         - Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly
> 
>         How would that sound?
> 
>         Wido
> 
>         >> On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Wido den Hollander
> mailto:w...@widodh.nl>> wrote:
>         >>
>         >>
>         >>
>         >>> On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>         >>> I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even
> though I myself
>         >>> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to
> give a simple start
>         >>> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page
> wizard for creating
>         >>> a shared network in advanced zone with security groups
> and userdata, great.
>         >>
>         >> That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter of
> using VLAN
>         >> isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because
> that's basically
>         >> what Basic Networking does.
>         >>
>         >> It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM).
>         >>
>         >> If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri in
> Advanced Networking
>         >> you get exactly the same result.
>         >>
>         >>> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple
> by throwing at as
>         >>> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:
>         >>
>         >> I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to
> the UI though.
>         >> So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.
>         >>
>         >> Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements
> at the right
>         >> location and you're done.
>         >>
>         >> Wido
>         >>
>         >>>
>          On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander
> mailto:w...@widodh.nl>> wrote:
>         
>          Hi,
>         
>          We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking
> and recently
>          started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN
> isolation and a
>          shared network.
>         
>          This provides (from what we can see) all the features
> Basic Networking
>          provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData
> while the Hypervisor
>          does the Security Grouping.
>         
>          That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.
>         
>          Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users
> as you can't
>          simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we
> found out that it's
>          possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't
> guarantee it works in
>          every use-case. So doing this automatically during a
> upgrade would be
>          difficult.
>         
>          To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic
> Networking code for ever
>          I would like to propose and discuss the matter of
> preventing the
>          creation of new Basic Networking zones.
>         
>          In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else
> statements in the
>         

Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones

[ilya musayev]

I think the simplicity of Basic Zone was - you can get away with 1 VLAN for
everything (great for POC setup) where as Advanced Shared with VLAN
isolation requires several VLANs to get going.

How would we cover this use case?

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:34 AM Tutkowski, Mike 
wrote:

> Also, yes, I agree with the list you provided, Wido. We might have to
> break “other fancy stuff” into more detail, though. ;)
>
> On 6/20/18, 12:32 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike"  wrote:
>
> Sorry, Wido :) I missed that part.
>
> On 6/20/18, 5:03 AM, "Wido den Hollander"  wrote:
>
>
>
> On 06/20/2018 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
> > If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good time to
> bump CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
> >
>
> That's what I said in my e-mail :-) But yes, I agree with you, this
> might be a good time to bump it to 5.0
>
> With that we would:
>
> - Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
> - Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
> - Java 9?
> - Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
> - Other fancy stuff?
> - Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly
>
> How would that sound?
>
> Wido
>
> >> On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Wido den Hollander 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> >>> I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even though
> I myself
> >>> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to give a
> simple start
> >>> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page wizard
> for creating
> >>> a shared network in advanced zone with security groups and
> userdata, great.
> >>
> >> That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter of using VLAN
> >> isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because that's
> basically
> >> what Basic Networking does.
> >>
> >> It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM).
> >>
> >> If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri in Advanced
> Networking
> >> you get exactly the same result.
> >>
> >>> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple by
> throwing at as
> >>> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:
> >>
> >> I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to the UI
> though.
> >> So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.
> >>
> >> Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements at
> the right
> >> location and you're done.
> >>
> >> Wido
> >>
> >>>
>  On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander <
> w...@widodh.nl> wrote:
> 
>  Hi,
> 
>  We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking and
> recently
>  started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN isolation
> and a
>  shared network.
> 
>  This provides (from what we can see) all the features Basic
> Networking
>  provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData while the
> Hypervisor
>  does the Security Grouping.
> 
>  That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.
> 
>  Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users as you
> can't
>  simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we found out
> that it's
>  possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't guarantee
> it works in
>  every use-case. So doing this automatically during a upgrade
> would be
>  difficult.
> 
>  To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic Networking
> code for ever
>  I would like to propose and discuss the matter of preventing
> the
>  creation of new Basic Networking zones.
> 
>  In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else
> statements in the
>  code and it would make testing also easier as we have few
> things to test.
> 
>  Most of the development also seems to go in the Advanced
> Networking
>  direction.
> 
>  We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced Shared
> Networks and
>  that's progressing very good as well.
> 
>  Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where we
> simplify the
>  networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic Networking
> while keeping
>  it alive for existing users?
> 
>  Wido
> 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones

[Tutkowski, Mike]

Also, yes, I agree with the list you provided, Wido. We might have to break 
“other fancy stuff” into more detail, though. ;)

On 6/20/18, 12:32 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike"  wrote:

Sorry, Wido :) I missed that part.

On 6/20/18, 5:03 AM, "Wido den Hollander"  wrote:



On 06/20/2018 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
> If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good time to bump 
CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
> 

That's what I said in my e-mail :-) But yes, I agree with you, this
might be a good time to bump it to 5.0

With that we would:

- Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
- Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
- Java 9?
- Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
- Other fancy stuff?
- Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly

How would that sound?

Wido

>> On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Wido den Hollander  
wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>>> I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even though I 
myself
>>> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to give a simple 
start
>>> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page wizard for 
creating
>>> a shared network in advanced zone with security groups and 
userdata, great.
>>
>> That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter of using VLAN
>> isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because that's 
basically
>> what Basic Networking does.
>>
>> It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM).
>>
>> If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri in Advanced 
Networking
>> you get exactly the same result.
>>
>>> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple by 
throwing at as
>>> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:
>>
>> I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to the UI 
though.
>> So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.
>>
>> Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements at the 
right
>> location and you're done.
>>
>> Wido
>>
>>>
 On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander 
 wrote:

 Hi,

 We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking and recently
 started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN isolation and a
 shared network.

 This provides (from what we can see) all the features Basic 
Networking
 provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData while the 
Hypervisor
 does the Security Grouping.

 That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.

 Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users as you can't
 simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we found out that 
it's
 possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't guarantee it 
works in
 every use-case. So doing this automatically during a upgrade would 
be
 difficult.

 To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic Networking code 
for ever
 I would like to propose and discuss the matter of preventing the
 creation of new Basic Networking zones.

 In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else statements 
in the
 code and it would make testing also easier as we have few things 
to test.

 Most of the development also seems to go in the Advanced Networking
 direction.

 We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced Shared Networks 
and
 that's progressing very good as well.

 Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where we simplify 
the
 networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic Networking while 
keeping
 it alive for existing users?

 Wido

>>>
>>>
>>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones

[Tutkowski, Mike]

Sorry, Wido :) I missed that part.

On 6/20/18, 5:03 AM, "Wido den Hollander"  wrote:



On 06/20/2018 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
> If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good time to bump 
CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
> 

That's what I said in my e-mail :-) But yes, I agree with you, this
might be a good time to bump it to 5.0

With that we would:

- Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
- Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
- Java 9?
- Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
- Other fancy stuff?
- Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly

How would that sound?

Wido

>> On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Wido den Hollander  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>>> I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even though I myself
>>> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to give a simple 
start
>>> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page wizard for 
creating
>>> a shared network in advanced zone with security groups and userdata, 
great.
>>
>> That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter of using VLAN
>> isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because that's basically
>> what Basic Networking does.
>>
>> It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM).
>>
>> If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri in Advanced Networking
>> you get exactly the same result.
>>
>>> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple by throwing at 
as
>>> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:
>>
>> I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to the UI though.
>> So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.
>>
>> Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements at the right
>> location and you're done.
>>
>> Wido
>>
>>>
 On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander  
wrote:

 Hi,

 We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking and recently
 started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN isolation and a
 shared network.

 This provides (from what we can see) all the features Basic Networking
 provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData while the Hypervisor
 does the Security Grouping.

 That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.

 Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users as you can't
 simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we found out that it's
 possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't guarantee it works in
 every use-case. So doing this automatically during a upgrade would be
 difficult.

 To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic Networking code for 
ever
 I would like to propose and discuss the matter of preventing the
 creation of new Basic Networking zones.

 In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else statements in the
 code and it would make testing also easier as we have few things to 
test.

 Most of the development also seems to go in the Advanced Networking
 direction.

 We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced Shared Networks and
 that's progressing very good as well.

 Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where we simplify the
 networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic Networking while keeping
 it alive for existing users?

 Wido

>>>
>>>
>>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones

[Wido den Hollander]

I never meant for this thread to de-rail into what should be CloudStack
5.0 :-)

I haven't heard any objections against the creation of new Basic
Networking Zones being prohibited, but hey, it's been <24 hours since I
send the first mail.

Wido

On 06/20/2018 04:51 PM, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> 
>>> With that we would:
>>>
>>> - Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
>>> - Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
>>> - Java 9?
>>> - Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
>>> - Other fancy stuff?
>> - Versioned API: keep v1 API (< v5.0.0)  and create a v2 API >= v5.0.0
>> where we fix all inconsistencies (ACL API generally, paging does not
>> always work, returned keys sometime camel case (crossZone), a.s.o.)
> 
> - Usable Error Messages (including a reason why things failed). Nothing fancy
> I think, following the respective Stacktrace in the Logfile, the top most 
> exception
> shows everything (in most cases), but looks like the last "generic" exception 
> is
> reported. 
> 
> 
>>>
>>> - Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones

[Rafael Weingärtner]

- When roles do not have access to some API methods, the buttons/links that
use these API methods should disappear from the interface.

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Stephan Seitz 
wrote:

> Hi!
>
>
> > > With that we would:
> > >
> > > - Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
> > > - Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
> > > - Java 9?
> > > - Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
> > > - Other fancy stuff?
> > - Versioned API: keep v1 API (< v5.0.0)  and create a v2 API >= v5.0.0
> > where we fix all inconsistencies (ACL API generally, paging does not
> > always work, returned keys sometime camel case (crossZone), a.s.o.)
>
> - Usable Error Messages (including a reason why things failed). Nothing
> fancy
> I think, following the respective Stacktrace in the Logfile, the top most
> exception
> shows everything (in most cases), but looks like the last "generic"
> exception is
> reported.
>
>
> > >
> > > - Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly
>
>
>


-- 
Rafael Weingärtner

Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones

[Stephan Seitz]

Hi!


> > With that we would:
> > 
> > - Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
> > - Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
> > - Java 9?
> > - Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
> > - Other fancy stuff?
> - Versioned API: keep v1 API (< v5.0.0)  and create a v2 API >= v5.0.0
> where we fix all inconsistencies (ACL API generally, paging does not
> always work, returned keys sometime camel case (crossZone), a.s.o.)

- Usable Error Messages (including a reason why things failed). Nothing fancy
I think, following the respective Stacktrace in the Logfile, the top most 
exception
shows everything (in most cases), but looks like the last "generic" exception is
reported. 


> > 
> > - Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly




signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones

[Rafael Weingärtner]

+1

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Rene Moser  wrote:

>
>
> On 06/20/2018 01:03 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 06/20/2018 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
> >> If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good time to bump
> CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
> >>
> >
> > That's what I said in my e-mail :-) But yes, I agree with you, this
> > might be a good time to bump it to 5.0
> >
> > With that we would:
> >
> > - Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
> > - Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
> > - Java 9?
> > - Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
> > - Other fancy stuff?
>
> - Versioned API: keep v1 API (< v5.0.0)  and create a v2 API >= v5.0.0
> where we fix all inconsistencies (ACL API generally, paging does not
> always work, returned keys sometime camel case (crossZone), a.s.o.)
>
> > - Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly
>



-- 
Rafael Weingärtner

Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones

[Rene Moser]

On 06/20/2018 01:03 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote:
> 
> 
> On 06/20/2018 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
>> If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good time to bump 
>> CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
>>
> 
> That's what I said in my e-mail :-) But yes, I agree with you, this
> might be a good time to bump it to 5.0
> 
> With that we would:
> 
> - Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
> - Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
> - Java 9?
> - Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
> - Other fancy stuff?

- Versioned API: keep v1 API (< v5.0.0)  and create a v2 API >= v5.0.0
where we fix all inconsistencies (ACL API generally, paging does not
always work, returned keys sometime camel case (crossZone), a.s.o.)

> - Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly

Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones

[Wido den Hollander]

On 06/20/2018 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
> If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good time to bump 
> CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
> 

That's what I said in my e-mail :-) But yes, I agree with you, this
might be a good time to bump it to 5.0

With that we would:

- Drop creation of new Basic Networking Zones
- Support IPv6 in shared IPv6 networks
- Java 9?
- Drop support for Ubuntu 12.04
- Other fancy stuff?
- Support ConfigDrive in all scenarios properly

How would that sound?

Wido

>> On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Wido den Hollander  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>>> I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even though I myself
>>> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to give a simple start
>>> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page wizard for creating
>>> a shared network in advanced zone with security groups and userdata, great.
>>
>> That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter of using VLAN
>> isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because that's basically
>> what Basic Networking does.
>>
>> It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM).
>>
>> If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri in Advanced Networking
>> you get exactly the same result.
>>
>>> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple by throwing at as
>>> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:
>>
>> I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to the UI though.
>> So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.
>>
>> Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements at the right
>> location and you're done.
>>
>> Wido
>>
>>>
 On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander  
 wrote:

 Hi,

 We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking and recently
 started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN isolation and a
 shared network.

 This provides (from what we can see) all the features Basic Networking
 provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData while the Hypervisor
 does the Security Grouping.

 That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.

 Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users as you can't
 simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we found out that it's
 possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't guarantee it works in
 every use-case. So doing this automatically during a upgrade would be
 difficult.

 To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic Networking code for ever
 I would like to propose and discuss the matter of preventing the
 creation of new Basic Networking zones.

 In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else statements in the
 code and it would make testing also easier as we have few things to test.

 Most of the development also seems to go in the Advanced Networking
 direction.

 We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced Shared Networks and
 that's progressing very good as well.

 Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where we simplify the
 networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic Networking while keeping
 it alive for existing users?

 Wido

>>>
>>>
>>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones

[Rafael Weingärtner]

 +1

I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to the UI though.
So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.

We all can help you with the UI. It is a little complicated at the
beginning because it is a JavaScript that generates HTML code. However, it
is doable.


On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:31 AM, Tutkowski, Mike  wrote:

> If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good time to bump
> CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?
>
> > On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Wido den Hollander  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> >> I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even though I myself
> >> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to give a simple
> start
> >> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page wizard for
> creating
> >> a shared network in advanced zone with security groups and userdata,
> great.
> >
> > That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter of using VLAN
> > isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because that's basically
> > what Basic Networking does.
> >
> > It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM).
> >
> > If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri in Advanced Networking
> > you get exactly the same result.
> >
> >> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple by throwing at
> as
> >> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:
> >
> > I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to the UI though.
> > So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.
> >
> > Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements at the right
> > location and you're done.
> >
> > Wido
> >
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking and recently
> >>> started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN isolation and a
> >>> shared network.
> >>>
> >>> This provides (from what we can see) all the features Basic Networking
> >>> provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData while the Hypervisor
> >>> does the Security Grouping.
> >>>
> >>> That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.
> >>>
> >>> Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users as you can't
> >>> simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we found out that it's
> >>> possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't guarantee it works in
> >>> every use-case. So doing this automatically during a upgrade would be
> >>> difficult.
> >>>
> >>> To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic Networking code for
> ever
> >>> I would like to propose and discuss the matter of preventing the
> >>> creation of new Basic Networking zones.
> >>>
> >>> In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else statements in the
> >>> code and it would make testing also easier as we have few things to
> test.
> >>>
> >>> Most of the development also seems to go in the Advanced Networking
> >>> direction.
> >>>
> >>> We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced Shared Networks and
> >>> that's progressing very good as well.
> >>>
> >>> Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where we simplify the
> >>> networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic Networking while keeping
> >>> it alive for existing users?
> >>>
> >>> Wido
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>



-- 
Rafael Weingärtner

Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones

[Tutkowski, Mike]

If this initiative goes through, perhaps that’s a good time to bump 
CloudStack’s release number to 5.0.0?

> On Jun 19, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Wido den Hollander  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>> I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even though I myself
>> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to give a simple start
>> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page wizard for creating
>> a shared network in advanced zone with security groups and userdata, great.
> 
> That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter of using VLAN
> isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because that's basically
> what Basic Networking does.
> 
> It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM).
> 
> If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri in Advanced Networking
> you get exactly the same result.
> 
>> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple by throwing at as
>> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:
> 
> I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to the UI though.
> So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.
> 
> Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements at the right
> location and you're done.
> 
> Wido
> 
>> 
>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking and recently
>>> started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN isolation and a
>>> shared network.
>>> 
>>> This provides (from what we can see) all the features Basic Networking
>>> provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData while the Hypervisor
>>> does the Security Grouping.
>>> 
>>> That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.
>>> 
>>> Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users as you can't
>>> simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we found out that it's
>>> possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't guarantee it works in
>>> every use-case. So doing this automatically during a upgrade would be
>>> difficult.
>>> 
>>> To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic Networking code for ever
>>> I would like to propose and discuss the matter of preventing the
>>> creation of new Basic Networking zones.
>>> 
>>> In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else statements in the
>>> code and it would make testing also easier as we have few things to test.
>>> 
>>> Most of the development also seems to go in the Advanced Networking
>>> direction.
>>> 
>>> We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced Shared Networks and
>>> that's progressing very good as well.
>>> 
>>> Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where we simplify the
>>> networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic Networking while keeping
>>> it alive for existing users?
>>> 
>>> Wido
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones

[Wido den Hollander]

On 06/19/2018 11:07 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even though I myself
> might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to give a simple start
> for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page wizard for creating
> a shared network in advanced zone with security groups and userdata, great.

That would be a UI thing, but it would be a matter of using VLAN
isolation and giving in VLAN 0 or 'untagged', because that's basically
what Basic Networking does.

It plugs the VM on top of usually cloudbr0 (KVM).

If you use vlan://untagged for the broadcast_uri in Advanced Networking
you get exactly the same result.

> And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple by throwing at as
> much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:

I would love to. But I'm a real novice when it comes to the UI though.
So that would be something I wouldn't be good at doing.

Blocking Basic Networking creation is a few if-statements at the right
location and you're done.

Wido

> 
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander  wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking and recently
>> started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN isolation and a
>> shared network.
>>
>> This provides (from what we can see) all the features Basic Networking
>> provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData while the Hypervisor
>> does the Security Grouping.
>>
>> That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.
>>
>> Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users as you can't
>> simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we found out that it's
>> possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't guarantee it works in
>> every use-case. So doing this automatically during a upgrade would be
>> difficult.
>>
>> To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic Networking code for ever
>> I would like to propose and discuss the matter of preventing the
>> creation of new Basic Networking zones.
>>
>> In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else statements in the
>> code and it would make testing also easier as we have few things to test.
>>
>> Most of the development also seems to go in the Advanced Networking
>> direction.
>>
>> We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced Shared Networks and
>> that's progressing very good as well.
>>
>> Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where we simplify the
>> networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic Networking while keeping
>> it alive for existing users?
>>
>> Wido
>>
> 
> 
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking the creation of new Basic Networking zones

[Daan Hoogland]

I like this initiative, and here comes the big but even though I myself
might think it is not valid; Basic zones are there to give a simple start
for new users. If we can give a one-knob start/one page wizard for creating
a shared network in advanced zone with security groups and userdata, great.
And I really fancy this idea. let's make ACS more simple by throwing at as
much code as we can in a gradual and controlled way :+1:

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Wido den Hollander  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We (PCextreme) are a big-time user of Basic Networking and recently
> started to look into Advanced Networking with VLAN isolation and a
> shared network.
>
> This provides (from what we can see) all the features Basic Networking
> provides, like the VR just doing DHCP and UserData while the Hypervisor
> does the Security Grouping.
>
> That made me wonder why we still have Basic Networking.
>
> Dropping all the code would be a big problem for users as you can't
> simply migrate from Basic to Advanced. In theory we found out that it's
> possible by changing the database, but I wouldn't guarantee it works in
> every use-case. So doing this automatically during a upgrade would be
> difficult.
>
> To prevent us from having to maintain the Basic Networking code for ever
> I would like to propose and discuss the matter of preventing the
> creation of new Basic Networking zones.
>
> In the future this can get us rid of a lot of if-else statements in the
> code and it would make testing also easier as we have few things to test.
>
> Most of the development also seems to go in the Advanced Networking
> direction.
>
> We are currently also working on IPv6 in Advanced Shared Networks and
> that's progressing very good as well.
>
> Would this be something to call the 5.0 release where we simplify the
> networking and in the UI/API get rid of Basic Networking while keeping
> it alive for existing users?
>
> Wido
>



-- 
Daan