Re: [Engine-devel] SPICE IP override
On 11/07/2012 09:52 AM, Simon Grinberg wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michal Skrivanek" <michal.skrivanek(a)redhat.com>
> To: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 10:39:58 PM
> Subject: [Engine-devel] SPICE IP override
>
> Hi all,
> On behalf of Tomas - please check out the proposal for enhancing our
> SPICE integration to allow to return a custom IP/FQDN instead of the
> host IP address.
> http://wiki.ovirt.org/wiki/Features/Display_Address_Override
> All comments are welcome...
My 2 cents,
This works under the assumption that all the users are either outside of the organization
or inside.
But think of some of the following scenarios based on a topology where users in the main
office are inside the corporate network while users on remote offices / WAN are on a
detached different network on the other side of the NAT / public firewall :
With current 'per host override' proposal:
1. Admin from the main office won't be able to access the VM console
2. No Mixed environment, meaning that you have to have designated clusters for remote
offices users vs main office users - otherwise connectivity to the console is determined
based on scheduler decision, or may break by live migration.
3. Based on #2, If I'm a user travelling between offices I'll have to ask the
admin to turn off my VM and move it to internal cluster before I can reconnect
My suggestion is to covert this to 'alternative' IP/FQDN sending the spice client
both internal fqdn/ip and the alternative. The spice client should detect which is
available of the two and auto-connect.
This requires enhancement of the spice client, but still solves all the issues raised
above (actually it solves about 90% of the use cases I've heard about in the past).
Another alternative is for the engine to 'guess' or 'elect' which to use,
alternative or main, based on the IP of the client - meaning admin provides the client
ranges for providing internal host address vs alternative - but this is more complicated
compared for the previous suggestion
Thoughts?
i think this is over complicating things.
I'd expect someone that wants to handle internal and external
differently to use DNS, and resolve the DNS differently for external and
internal clients.
(note this is different from specifying the spice proxy address at
cluster level, which is something you want user to choose if they want
to enable or not per their location)