andrijapanicsb commented on a change in pull request #224:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-documentation/pull/224#discussion_r690124368
##
File path: source/releasenotes/compat.rst
##
@@ -24,7 +24,11 @@ CloudStack Management Server.
- Ubuntu 16.04 LTS, 18.04 LTS,
Hi Wido,
(cc to Rohit and Alex)
It is a good suggestion to use FRR for ipv6. The configuration is quite
simple and the VMs can get SLAAC, routes, etc.
Privacy extension looks not the same as what you mentioned. see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4941
You are right. To use static routi
Hi Wei,
That's correct. The network operator would need to create static routes for the
/64s, both for Isolated networks and VPCs. The next-hop for those being the
outside interface of the Virtual Router, which will have an IP from the
"public" /64.
Cheers
Alex
-Original Message-
Hi Wei,
Yes, root admins should add all the /64 and bigger /56, /48 blocks which
CloudStack will use to calculate and allocate /64 block from to a IPv6 enabled
isolated network or VPC tier; for every /64 allocation/assignment to such a
network a static route for the /64 target with the ipv6 add
+1 to keeping the scope tight on phase 1 and then expanding functionality later
on.
-Original Message-
From: Rohit Yadav
Sent: 17 August 2021 11:26
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: IPV6 in Isolated/VPC networks
Hi Wei,
Yes, root admins should add all the /64 and bigger /
Op 17-08-2021 om 11:20 schreef Wei ZHOU:
Hi Wido,
(cc to Rohit and Alex)
It is a good suggestion to use FRR for ipv6. The configuration is quite
simple and the VMs can get SLAAC, routes, etc.
Privacy extension looks not the same as what you mentioned. see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ht
Op 16-08-2021 om 11:29 schreef Rohit Yadav:
Thanks Hean, Kristaps, Wido for your feedback.
I think we've some quorum and consensus on how we should proceed with IPv6
support with static routing (phase1). Based on my proof-of-concept and
discussions, I believe we may target this feature as e
Hi Wido,
Thanks for the idea, this sounds extremely interesting. We'll investigate.
Cheers
Alex
-Original Message-
From: Wido den Hollander
Sent: 17 August 2021 12:46
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: IPV6 in Isolated/VPC networks
Op 16-08-2021 om 11:29 schreef Rohit Yad
I did basic tests on Linux using the x86-64 binary;
* setup a profile
* list outputs in csv, json, table, text...
* sync, list API, deploy VM
* tried the autocomplete (param) true|false - works!
Regards.
From: Pearl d'Silva
Sent: Friday, August 1
Hi Wei,
Published this month’s RFC 9099 and explains in different words/perspective
what has been written by Alex, Rohit and Wido.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9099.html
On 2021/08/17 09:20:21, Wei ZHOU wrote:
> Hi Wido,
>
> (cc to Rohit and Alex)
>
> It is a good suggestion to use F
Thanks Kristaps, Wido, Rohit and Alex for your replies.
I am fine with not having stateful dhcpv6 and privacy extension/temporary
address in phase 1. If community decides not to do eventually , it is also
ok to me.
We could explore how to better use secondary ipv6 addresses as Wido
advised. It wo
11 matches
Mail list logo
