----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michal Skrivanek" <michal.skrivanek(a)redhat.com&gt; > 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?

From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Simon Grinberg" <simon(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org Sent: Wednesday, November 7, 2012 10:46:24 AM Subject: 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&gt; >> 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) _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michal Skrivanek" <michal.skrivanek(a)redhat.com&gt; > 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?

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(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > 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 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.

Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden píše v St 07. 11. 2012 v 12:08 +0100: > 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(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > > 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 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. That's the cost of quick-to-implement solution. If it is possible to have per-host display port range, you could work this limitation around by setting non-overlapping ranges for each host and use a single proxy or DNAT machine that would decide which port to forward based on the range.

On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 12:40 +0100, David Jaša wrote: > Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden píše v St 07. 11. 2012 v 12:08 +0100: > > 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(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > > > 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 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. > > That's the cost of quick-to-implement solution. > > If it is possible to have per-host display port range, you could work > this limitation around by setting non-overlapping ranges for each host > and use a single proxy or DNAT machine that would decide which port to > forward based on the range. I am a colleague of Ewoud, and want to explain a bit more about how we currently have implemented this. All our virtualization hosts, but also the manager only live in the internal network. We have written a webapplication that is a self-service portal for our customers. This webapplication lives on a host that is publicly reachable. This host can also reach the virtualization servers on the internal network. Now for all actions except for viewing a console the webhost only needs to access the api, so what happens when a user wants to view the console (we currently use vnc): On the webhost we have reserved a number of ports. Api request is made to get the host/port, and we set the ticket (vnc password). We create a tunnel (currently use socat, but can of course also be DNAT or any kind of proxy) that connects one of the free ports on the external webhost to the host/port combo we got back from the api. This is a very simple implementation, but it works well in our experience.

For added points you can make the proxy smarter, things like handling vm migrations and maybe adding websockets support for a html5 spice client ;) Kind regards, Sander _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel

From: "Sander Hoentjen" <sander(a)hoentjen.eu&gt; To: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org Sent: Friday, November 9, 2012 11:07:39 AM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] SPICE IP override On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 12:40 +0100, David Jaša wrote: > Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden píše v St 07. 11. 2012 v 12:08 +0100: > > 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(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > > > 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 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. > > That's the cost of quick-to-implement solution. > > If it is possible to have per-host display port range, you could > work > this limitation around by setting non-overlapping ranges for each > host > and use a single proxy or DNAT machine that would decide which port > to > forward based on the range. I am a colleague of Ewoud, and want to explain a bit more about how we currently have implemented this. All our virtualization hosts, but also the manager only live in the internal network. We have written a webapplication that is a self-service portal for our customers. This webapplication lives on a host that is publicly reachable. This host can also reach the virtualization servers on the internal network. Now for all actions except for viewing a console the webhost only needs to access the api, so what happens when a user wants to view the console (we currently use vnc): On the webhost we have reserved a number of ports. Api request is made to get the host/port, and we set the ticket (vnc password). We create a tunnel (currently use socat, but can of course also be DNAT or any kind of proxy) that connects one of the free ports on the external webhost to the host/port combo we got back from the api. This is a very simple implementation, but it works well in our experience. For added points you can make the proxy smarter, things like handling vm migrations and maybe adding websockets support for a html5 spice client ;)

Kind regards, Sander _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel

From: "Yaniv Kaul" <ykaul(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Simon Grinberg" <simon(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Michal Skrivanek" <michal.skrivanek(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 11:45:34 AM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] SPICE IP override

On 11/07/2012 10:52 AM, Simon Grinberg wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Michal Skrivanek" <michal.skrivanek(a)redhat.com&gt; 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? Lets not re-invent the wheel. This problem has been pondered before and solved[1], for all scenarios: internal clients connecting to internal resources; internal clients connecting to external resources, without the need for any intermediate assistance external clients connecting to internal resources, with the need for intermediate assistance. VPN clients connecting to internal resources, with or without an internal IP.

Any other solution you'll try to come up with will bring you back to this standard, well known (along with its faults) method.

The browser client will use PAC to determine how to connect to the hosts and will deliver this to the client. It's also a good path towards real proxy support for Spice. (Regardless, we still need to deal with the Spice protocol's migration command of course).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_auto-confi

> Simon. > > Thanks, > > > michal >

> > _______________________________________________ > > > Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > > _______________________________________________ > Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel

From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Yaniv Kaul" <ykaul(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "Simon Grinberg" <simon(a)redhat.com&gt;, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 11:10:21 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] SPICE IP override On 11/11/2012 11:45 AM, Yaniv Kaul wrote: > On 11/07/2012 10:52 AM, Simon Grinberg wrote: >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Michal Skrivanek&quot;&lt;michal.skrivanek(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> 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? > > Lets not re-invent the wheel. This problem has been pondered before > and > solved[1], for all scenarios: > internal clients connecting to internal resources; > internal clients connecting to external resources, without the need > for > any intermediate assistance > external clients connecting to internal resources, with the need > for > intermediate assistance. > VPN clients connecting to internal resources, with or without an > internal IP. > > Any other solution you'll try to come up with will bring you back > to > this standard, well known (along with its faults) method. > > The browser client will use PAC to determine how to connect to the > hosts > and will deliver this to the client. It's also a good path towards > real > proxy support for Spice. > (Regardless, we still need to deal with the Spice protocol's > migration > command of course). > > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_auto-config so instead of a spice proxy fqdn field, we should just allow user to specify a pac file which resides under something like /etc/ovirt/engine/pac...?

_______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Yaniv Kaul" <ykaul(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: "Simon Grinberg" <simon(a)redhat.com&gt;, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 11:10:21 PM > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] SPICE IP override > > On 11/11/2012 11:45 AM, Yaniv Kaul wrote: >> On 11/07/2012 10:52 AM, Simon Grinberg wrote: >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Michal Skrivanek&quot;&lt;michal.skrivanek(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> 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? >> Lets not re-invent the wheel. This problem has been pondered before >> and >> solved[1], for all scenarios: >> internal clients connecting to internal resources; >> internal clients connecting to external resources, without the need >> for >> any intermediate assistance >> external clients connecting to internal resources, with the need >> for >> intermediate assistance. >> VPN clients connecting to internal resources, with or without an >> internal IP. >> >> Any other solution you'll try to come up with will bring you back >> to >> this standard, well known (along with its faults) method. >> >> The browser client will use PAC to determine how to connect to the >> hosts >> and will deliver this to the client. It's also a good path towards >> real >> proxy support for Spice. >> (Regardless, we still need to deal with the Spice protocol's >> migration >> command of course). >> >> >> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_auto-config > so instead of a spice proxy fqdn field, we should just allow user to > specify a pac file which resides under something like > /etc/ovirt/engine/pac...? Doesn't this presume that the user allows a single site to set his proxy settings, which seems rather insecure?

> _______________________________________________ > Engine-devel mailing list > Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel >

On 11/15/2012 08:33 AM, Yaniv Kaul wrote: > On 11/15/2012 06:10 AM, Itamar Heim wrote: >> On 11/11/2012 11:45 AM, Yaniv Kaul wrote: >>> On 11/07/2012 10:52 AM, Simon Grinberg wrote: >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Michal Skrivanek&quot;&lt;michal.skrivanek(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>> 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? >>> >>> Lets not re-invent the wheel. This problem has been pondered >>> before and >>> solved[1], for all scenarios: >>> internal clients connecting to internal resources; >>> internal clients connecting to external resources, without the >>> need for >>> any intermediate assistance >>> external clients connecting to internal resources, with the need >>> for >>> intermediate assistance. >>> VPN clients connecting to internal resources, with or without an >>> internal IP. >>> >>> Any other solution you'll try to come up with will bring you back >>> to >>> this standard, well known (along with its faults) method. >>> >>> The browser client will use PAC to determine how to connect to >>> the hosts >>> and will deliver this to the client. It's also a good path >>> towards real >>> proxy support for Spice. >>> (Regardless, we still need to deal with the Spice protocol's >>> migration >>> command of course). >>> >>> >>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_auto-config >> >> so instead of a spice proxy fqdn field, we should just allow user >> to >> specify a pac file which resides under something like >> /etc/ovirt/engine/pac...? > > I would actually encourage the customers to use their own corporate > PAC > and add the information to it. so you are suggesting that there is no need at all to deal with proxy definition/configuration at ovirt engine/user portal level?

On 11/15/2012 09:06 AM, Yaniv Kaul wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> On 11/15/2012 08:33 AM, Yaniv Kaul wrote: >>> On 11/15/2012 06:10 AM, Itamar Heim wrote: >>>> On 11/11/2012 11:45 AM, Yaniv Kaul wrote: >>>>> On 11/07/2012 10:52 AM, Simon Grinberg wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>> From: "Michal Skrivanek&quot;&lt;michal.skrivanek(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>>> 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? >>>>> >>>>> Lets not re-invent the wheel. This problem has been pondered >>>>> before and >>>>> solved[1], for all scenarios: >>>>> internal clients connecting to internal resources; >>>>> internal clients connecting to external resources, without the >>>>> need for >>>>> any intermediate assistance >>>>> external clients connecting to internal resources, with the need >>>>> for >>>>> intermediate assistance. >>>>> VPN clients connecting to internal resources, with or without an >>>>> internal IP. >>>>> >>>>> Any other solution you'll try to come up with will bring you back >>>>> to >>>>> this standard, well known (along with its faults) method. >>>>> >>>>> The browser client will use PAC to determine how to connect to >>>>> the hosts >>>>> and will deliver this to the client. It's also a good path >>>>> towards real >>>>> proxy support for Spice. >>>>> (Regardless, we still need to deal with the Spice protocol's >>>>> migration >>>>> command of course). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_auto-config >>>> >>>> so instead of a spice proxy fqdn field, we should just allow user >>>> to >>>> specify a pac file which resides under something like >>>> /etc/ovirt/engine/pac...? >>> >>> I would actually encourage the customers to use their own corporate >>> PAC >>> and add the information to it. >> >> so you are suggesting that there is no need at all to deal with proxy >> definition/configuration at ovirt engine/user portal level? > > I expect the admin/user portal to send the result of the PAC > processing to the Spice client. > I don't think the Spice client should execute the PAC (it's a > Javascript...). ok, so no engine, but just client side support for PAC?

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Yaniv Kaul" <ykaul(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: "Simon Grinberg" <simon(a)redhat.com&gt;, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:07:02 AM > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] SPICE IP override > > On 11/15/2012 09:35 AM, Itamar Heim wrote: >> On 11/15/2012 09:06 AM, Yaniv Kaul wrote: >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> On 11/15/2012 08:33 AM, Yaniv Kaul wrote: >>>>> On 11/15/2012 06:10 AM, Itamar Heim wrote: >>>>>> On 11/11/2012 11:45 AM, Yaniv Kaul wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/07/2012 10:52 AM, Simon Grinberg wrote: >>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>> From: "Michal Skrivanek&quot;&lt;michal.skrivanek(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>> Lets not re-invent the wheel. This problem has been pondered >>>>>>> before and >>>>>>> solved[1], for all scenarios: >>>>>>> internal clients connecting to internal resources; >>>>>>> internal clients connecting to external resources, without the >>>>>>> need for >>>>>>> any intermediate assistance >>>>>>> external clients connecting to internal resources, with the >>>>>>> need >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> intermediate assistance. >>>>>>> VPN clients connecting to internal resources, with or without >>>>>>> an >>>>>>> internal IP. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any other solution you'll try to come up with will bring you >>>>>>> back >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> this standard, well known (along with its faults) method. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The browser client will use PAC to determine how to connect to >>>>>>> the hosts >>>>>>> and will deliver this to the client. It's also a good path >>>>>>> towards real >>>>>>> proxy support for Spice. >>>>>>> (Regardless, we still need to deal with the Spice protocol's >>>>>>> migration >>>>>>> command of course). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_auto-config >>>>>> so instead of a spice proxy fqdn field, we should just allow >>>>>> user >>>>>> to >>>>>> specify a pac file which resides under something like >>>>>> /etc/ovirt/engine/pac...? >>>>> I would actually encourage the customers to use their own >>>>> corporate >>>>> PAC >>>>> and add the information to it. >>>> so you are suggesting that there is no need at all to deal with >>>> proxy >>>> definition/configuration at ovirt engine/user portal level? >>> I expect the admin/user portal to send the result of the PAC >>> processing to the Spice client. >>> I don't think the Spice client should execute the PAC (it's a >>> Javascript...). And live migration?

I don't completely understand how you can avoid executing the PAC file if the destination host is provided by Qemu (client_migrate_info) unless I'm confusing with something else and it is the web client that delivers this info on migration.

P.S., If it is Qemu, then I don't see the current feature page accounting for that - IE, the hosts should also be informed on this override IP

>> ok, so no engine, but just client side support for PAC? > Exactly. > And of course, Spice protocol changes, without which all this effort > is > nice, but incomplete. > Y. > > > _______________________________________________ > Engine-devel mailing list > Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel >

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Yaniv Kaul" <ykaul(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Simon Grinberg" <simon(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org, "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt; > Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:42:19 AM > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] SPICE IP override > > On 11/15/2012 10:33 AM, Simon Grinberg wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Yaniv Kaul" <ykaul(a)redhat.com&gt; > >> To: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt; > >> Cc: "Simon Grinberg" <simon(a)redhat.com&gt;, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > >> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:07:02 AM > >> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] SPICE IP override > >> > >> On 11/15/2012 09:35 AM, Itamar Heim wrote: > >>> On 11/15/2012 09:06 AM, Yaniv Kaul wrote: > >>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>> On 11/15/2012 08:33 AM, Yaniv Kaul wrote: > >>>>>> On 11/15/2012 06:10 AM, Itamar Heim wrote: > >>>>>>> On 11/11/2012 11:45 AM, Yaniv Kaul wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 11/07/2012 10:52 AM, Simon Grinberg wrote: > >>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>>>>>>> From: "Michal Skrivanek&quot;&lt;michal.skrivanek(a)redhat.com&gt; > >>>>>>>>>> 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? > >>>>>>>> Lets not re-invent the wheel. This problem has been pondered > >>>>>>>> before and > >>>>>>>> solved[1], for all scenarios: > >>>>>>>> internal clients connecting to internal resources; > >>>>>>>> internal clients connecting to external resources, without > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> need for > >>>>>>>> any intermediate assistance > >>>>>>>> external clients connecting to internal resources, with the > >>>>>>>> need > >>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>> intermediate assistance. > >>>>>>>> VPN clients connecting to internal resources, with or > >>>>>>>> without > >>>>>>>> an > >>>>>>>> internal IP. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Any other solution you'll try to come up with will bring you > >>>>>>>> back > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> this standard, well known (along with its faults) method. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The browser client will use PAC to determine how to connect > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> the hosts > >>>>>>>> and will deliver this to the client. It's also a good path > >>>>>>>> towards real > >>>>>>>> proxy support for Spice. > >>>>>>>> (Regardless, we still need to deal with the Spice protocol's > >>>>>>>> migration > >>>>>>>> command of course). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_auto-config > >>>>>>> so instead of a spice proxy fqdn field, we should just allow > >>>>>>> user > >>>>>>> to > >>>>>>> specify a pac file which resides under something like > >>>>>>> /etc/ovirt/engine/pac...? > >>>>>> I would actually encourage the customers to use their own > >>>>>> corporate > >>>>>> PAC > >>>>>> and add the information to it. > >>>>> so you are suggesting that there is no need at all to deal with > >>>>> proxy > >>>>> definition/configuration at ovirt engine/user portal level? > >>>> I expect the admin/user portal to send the result of the PAC > >>>> processing to the Spice client. > >>>> I don't think the Spice client should execute the PAC (it's a > >>>> Javascript...). > > And live migration? > > Read my email: "And of course, Spice protocol changes" > > > I don't completely understand how you can avoid executing the PAC > > file if the destination host is provided by Qemu > > (client_migrate_info) unless I'm confusing with something else and > > it is the web client that delivers this info on migration. > > I'm not against executing the PAC. It just requires a javascript > engine, > which is a bit of an overkill for Spice client to start working with, > no? > I'm aware there is a critical gap with the Spice protocol, but all > I'm > saying is that any other idea you'll come up with to get the topology > right is going to be a rewrite of the PAC idea. You will need to > define > the topology, and you'll need to lookup your current location against > it. This is what PAC does. > > A Spice proxy would probably be able to solve the Spice protocol > issue, > as we expect the proxy to handle the host hand-over when migration > happens, I reckon. > > > > > P.S., > > If it is Qemu, then I don't see the current feature page accounting > > for that - IE, the hosts should also be informed on this override > > IP > > Why? A host is rarely aware it is behind NAT. If it's because of the > protocol issue, the protocol has to be changed. I'm referring to the current feature page as is (taking out the rest of the discussion): It lacks solution for migration: 1. You have host A, and B, both with overridden IP set 2. On initial connect the browser provides the connection details using host A 'override IP' settings 3. VM Migrates from A to B 4. Now it's Qemu providing the destination connection details - it will provide the internal IP of host B Connection breaks !!! Again, unless I'm missing something and live migration destination is provided by the web client/engine to the spice client (somehow)

> Y. > > > > > > > > >>> ok, so no engine, but just client side support for PAC? > >> Exactly. > >> And of course, Spice protocol changes, without which all this > >> effort > >> is > >> nice, but incomplete. > >> Y. > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Engine-devel mailing list > >> Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > >> > > _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel