On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 11:23:27AM +0100, David Jaša wrote:
Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden píše v St 07. 11. 2012 v 11:16 +0100:
On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 03:52:14AM -0500, Simon Grinberg wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michal Skrivanek" <michal.skrivanek@redhat.com> To: engine-devel@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 agree with where you're going with this. The story I'd like to see supported is close to this. We have external customers who should know nothing about our internal network, but should be able to access the console of their VMs. Currently we do this with a custom frontend which uses the API (and is about as old as the RHEV 2.2 API) and a TCP proxy, but we'd like to move to the standard UI. Currently the console connection prevents us from doing so.
You could do that with this proposal, if you: 1) DNAT some external-facing IPs to your hypervisor display network IPs 2) resolve display network FQDN to the DNATing machine IPs for external queries.
I imagine you need 1 external-facing IP per host, which makes it expensive to scale since IPv4 space is very limited. This is why I suggested a proxy. In theory this could also be used to modify a forward to have seamless host migrations because the end point for the client wouldn't change.