CloudStack does not support this out-of-the-box, but with come creativity you can extend CloudStack (in advanced networking using vlans) to work like you describe.

I'm looking into this myself and am testing a setup where I replaced the 'virtual routers' with real routers, and then used vlans to route public traffic to the vm's. But this is quite some work to implement, as you cannot use the services the 'virtual routers' provide (dhcp, user data, etc etc). At the moment I'm still working on this and do not have a HOWTO or something like that. You need to play with CloudStack a lot and every day you'll discover a new possibility

You could also add a feature request to have this added in a future version of CloudStack.
Read More...

CloudStack 3.0.2 is not yet released, but should be soon I've heard. Documentation is being updated at the moment, so it should't take long...
Read More...

I have a physical network for storage/management, plus one for public traffic
- storage and management are 10.10.0.0/24
- public is say 12.34.5.0/23

I'm using vlans to create different virtual networks for VM's
- vlans with private ip (runs on management network)
No portforwarding/loadbalancing/gateway services etc needed here
- vlans with public ip (runs on the public network)
here I want to use physical routers (linux boxes) that have these services: gateway, dhcp.

The physical wiring works. When cloudstack generates a guest network, it gives a vlan id (say 101), so when I add this vlan to the router and give it an ip in the same range as the VM, they are able to communicate with each other. So this is cool! It is even possible to directly assign public ip's to vm's this way (solving ssl, ipv6 etc problems). But this is managing things outside of CloudStack so not really what I want.

Furthermore, still there is a virtual router running (and needed to spin up new vm's) which is in control of dhcp/gateway services. How can I replace the virtual router (gateway and dhcp services) with my own linux boxes? What do I have to setup in CloudStack to make it aware of my router providing these services? I'm currently not interested in port forwarding/firewalling etc. I understand the virtual router is no longer able to do this for this network and that is fine.

I've read some things about "Network offerings" but when I add an offering, I cannot select it when I create a new guest network. It always displays "DefaultSharedNetworkOfferingWithSGService" as the only option.

I'd appreciate some hints to get to understand the concept better and to make it work. Thanks!

PS: Using beta3
Read More...

Thanks for sharing!

I don't really understand how you solved it and I'm interested in this too. Are you using the beta3 version? If so, could you let me know what network you disabled exactly? Thanks!
Read More...

I dont't think it is supposed to work like this. The CloudStack VR is using DHCP to supply ip's to VM's. One a VM has an ip, it seems to keep that ip until the VM is destroyed.

I do think updating the database will work, you could experiment with it and see if you get the ip again when you reboot. And if you supply a static ip to the VM, that will be ok. But then you need to make sure the DHCP-server won't be giving this ip to another VM.

Does anyone know how this is handled in CloudStack?

Taking a look at the Virtual Router gives a bit of an idea how it works. You can connect via the link-local address which you can find in the webinterace (169.254.x.x). Then try this from the compute node on which the VR is running (also to be found in the webinterface):



Hope this helps!
Read More...

This looks like a bug to me. I'll be testing bonding and beta3 on CentOS this week, so I'll let you know if it works for me.

In the meantime you can search if this is a know issue (I didn't find it yet) and if not file a bugreport at bugs.cloud.com/
Read More...

Is there somewhere documentation for the API of CloudStack 3.0?

Here I only find it for 2.2:
docs.cloud.com/CloudStack_Documentation/...erence%3A_CloudStack

Or isn't the API changed?
Read More...

Hi all,

We're designing our cloud infra at work and I'd be really interested to hear what others are using as their storage devices.

We've played with an EMC VNXe series device, but it didn't perform well in our tests. Then we decided to have a look at Open-E but to me that seems just a pretty UI on common OpenSource software (LVM, DRBD, Linux Kernel). So, one option is to build a redundant OpenSource NFS server ourselves and use some good hardware Raid-controllers that support SSD-caching for.

We'll need about 15TB or so.

What are you using for primary storage?
Read More...

Hi,

I don't see the screenshot.. but I can imaging you are using version 2.2 and I assumed you were using 3.0 like I do. So that is probably why you can't find it.

I'm not sure how to do it in 2.2 and I don't have a setup to have a look. Sorry I can't be of any more help. Maybe one of the 2.2 users on this forum can advise you further.
Read More...

Hi,

It is possible.

Go to:
Network, Guests, IP adresses, and select the ip-address you want to change.

Then click 'release' (the icon with the red cross) and it will put the ip back to the pool, ready for another account to use it.

Is this what you intent to do?
Read More...

Hi,

It seems this is because of Insufficient capacity.



AFAIK, when you make sure the proxy VM can get a public ip, it will work. You can add more public ip's in the webinterface.
Read More...

@viccloud Just a quick note to let you know the UPPERcase problem has been solved in beta3
Read More...

I've run into this problem too when testing 3.0 beta1. After debugging and trying to reproduce it, I found that it occurs when changing settings on the node (for example the agent.properties file) when the node is not in maintenance mode. It seems cloudstack detects something unexpected happens on the node and then decides to ignore it. Although, that's my impression.

So, since then I always enable maintenance mode first, then do the change, disable maintenance and all works fine.

To get the host working again you can remove it, and then add it again.
Read More...

@brooks Do you mind sharing how you would set this up in a bit more detail? I'm currently testing 3.0beta3

Thanks for the hints and otherwise I'll file an enhancement request.

Thanks, Remi
Read More...