On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Yevgeny Zaspitsky <yzaspits@redhat.com> wrote:

Piotr,

According to our checks engine succeed connecting VDSM through ipv6 once the work you've reminded has been done. So it looks like jsonrpc is agnostic to IP layer it uses underneath.

I never tested it with ipv6 but looking at java internals that I used and it accepts host as specified in RFC 2732 or RFC 2373. It looks that it should work out of the box.

Could you please elaborate on why do you think that we break backward compatibility.

I suggested to add Address type which would hold both address types so we could use it in many places. This change would break backward compatibility.

If you compare the wiki to vdsmapi-schema.json file, looks like the last isn't updated for some time and needs to be updated according to the actual code.

Type extension would not break backward compatibility but it would introduce bunch of optional parameters. I think we could do better.

We add dhcpv6 in order to allow user to configure v6 stack independently from v4 one. That could be useful especially in a transition period, when a user have fully configured ipv4 and would like to try using ipv6 and he hasn't configured his DHCP server for v6 yet.

I would add that to new address type. What do you think?

Regards, Yevgeny

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Piotr Kliczewski <piotr.kliczewski@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Thank you for the effort.

I have 2 comments: - In [1] I do not see any information about using ipv6 in jsonrpc code. I know that there was some work done on vdsm [2] side but nothing on the engine side.

- We are about to break some backward compatibility so I suggest to define new type which would hold ipv4 or ipv6 information (vdsm api section) or if we want to keep the backward compatibility we should reuse existing parameters and prepare the code to handle both formats. Why we are adding @dhcpv6? We do not have this setting for ipv4.

Thanks, Piotr

[2] https://gerrit.ovirt.org/51319

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Yevgeny Zaspitsky <yzaspits@redhat.com> wrote:

...

Hi All,

IPv6 support is a long waited feature in oVirt and that was decided to include it in v4.0. I have updated the feature page [1] with the recent projected changes.

Please take a look on the page and please send me your comments so those would be reflected in the feature implementation.

Regards, Yevgeny

[1] http://www.ovirt.org/Features/IPv6_support

_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

I think we have created a bug [1] for fencing related ipv6 support. Martin [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194055 ----- Original Message -----

From: "Eli Mesika" <emesika@redhat.com> To: "Yevgeny Zaspitsky" <yzaspits@redhat.com> Cc: "devel" <devel@ovirt.org>, "Michael Burman" <mburman@redhat.com>, "Oved Ourfali" <oourfali@redhat.com>, "Martin Perina" <mperina@redhat.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 2:57:08 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] IPv6 support in oVirt

This will require a change also in the fencing arguments We will have to add inet4_only inet6_only support from the UI/API as a common field (like port/slot/secure)

See https://fedorahosted.org/cluster/wiki/FenceArguments

Please add that as well to your doc.

----- Original Message -----

...

From: "Yevgeny Zaspitsky" <yzaspits@redhat.com> To: "devel" <devel@ovirt.org> Cc: "Michael Burman" <mburman@redhat.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 6:02:03 PM Subject: [ovirt-devel] IPv6 support in oVirt

Hi All,

IPv6 support is a long waited feature in oVirt and that was decided to include it in v4.0. I have updated the feature page [1] with the recent projected changes.

Please take a look on the page and please send me your comments so those would be reflected in the feature implementation.

Regards, Yevgeny

[1] http://www.ovirt.org/Features/IPv6_support

_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel