(After typing a lot here and spewing out some ideas, I've gotten my mind
back on track and realized that I've mostly been talking about the
design of *other* network-related stuff rather than reviewing IPv6-NAT
enablement! I just saw your comments as a good starting point for
getting out some thoughts I've had on the same subject. I'll try to not
digress so much when reviewing the patches themselves :-)
On 6/8/20 10:51 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
The virtual network has never supported NAT with IPv6 since this feature
didn't exist at the time. NAT has been available since RHEL-7 vintage
though, and it is desirable to be able to use it.
This series enables it with
<forward mode=3D"nat">
<nat ipv6=3D"yes"/>
</forward>
I've had this lurking on my "this is something I should do" list for a
long time, but couldn't decide on the best name in XML (and also figured
that the problem with accept_ra needed to be fixed first), so it never
got to the top. So I'm glad to see you've done it, disappointed in
myself that I never did it :-/
I like your XML knob naming better than what I'd considered. I had
thought of having <forward mode='supernat'> (or some other more
reasonable extra mode), but your proposal is more orthogonal and matches
with the existing ipv6='yes' at the toplevel of <network> (which is used
to enable ipv6 traffic between guests on the bridge even when there are
no IPv6 addresses configured for the network.)
Note that I do NOT actually change the default.xml to enable use of IPv6
because that will cause failure if the user has force disabled IPv6 on
their host kernel.
Of course our current default.xml is already broken if someone has done
the reverse and force disabled IPv4.
We've also long had a problem with guests bringing up the default
network with the same subnet as the host. We'll have this same issue
with IPv6 too.
On my prompting Laine proposed a way to deal with the clash by tearing
down a network, if we see a real host NIC get assigned the same subnet.
I need to re-send that as a normal patch rather than an RFC. My
recollection is that there weren't objections to the way I'd done it,
but I'll go back and look at the review comments again.
Meanwhile we also have complaints about the fact that libvirt does
anything todo with networking in the %post of the RPM.
I'm thinking that we can do something entirely different by introducing
a concept of "automatic subnet selection" into the virtual network.
Yes! I had the same idea, but thought of calling it "super-default". (I
really seem to be liking "super-anything" names lately...)
Consider if we made default.xml be able to contain only:
<network>
<name>default</name>
<forward/>
<ip family=3D"ipv4" autoaddr=3D"yes">
<dhcp/>
</ip>
<ip family=3D"ipv6" autoaddr=3D"yes"/>
(as discussed in IRC today - git-publish bug there, escaping the = sign)
I like this name too. How do I always come up with such horrible names
and you come up with good names?
</network>
Conceptually this means
- Try to gimme a subnet with IPv4 and DHCP
- Try to gimme a subnet with IPv6 and RAs
Now when we start the virtual network
- If IPv4 is not enabled on host, don't assign addr
What will we use to check for this? Not just "no IP addresses
configured", I guess, since it may be the case that libvirt has just
happened to come up before NM or whoever has started any networks. (or
maybe someone wants to use IPv6 on a libvirt virtual network, but have
no IPv6 connectivity beyond the host).
- Else
- Iterate N=3D1..254 to find a free range for IPv4
- Use 192.168.N.0/24 for subnet
- Use 192.168.N.1 for host IP
- Use 192.168.N.2 -> 192.168.N.254 for guest DHCP
- If IPv6 is not enabled on host, don't assign addr
- Else
- Generate NNNN:NNNN as 4 random bytes
- Use fd00:add:f00d:NNNN:NNNN::0/64 for IPv6 subnet
- Use fd00:add:f00d:NNNN:NNNN::1 for host IP
- Use route advertizement for IPv6 zero-conf
With NNNN:NNNN, even with 1000 guests running, we have just a 0.02%
chance of clashing with a guest for IPv6.
The "live" XML would always reflect the currently assigned addresses
Proactively monitor the address allocations of the host. If we see
a conflicting address appear, take down the dnsmasq intance, generate
a new subnet, bring dnsmasq back online.
Hmm. How would you see this monitoring happening? We couldn't do it with
an external script like I had done for simple "shut down on conflict"
without adding extra functionality to libvirt's network driver. We
*could* go back to the idea of monitoring netlink change messages
ourselves within libvirtd and doing it all internally ourselves. Or
maybe the NM script I proposed could go beyond simply destroying
conflicting networks, and also restart any network that had
autoaddr='yes'; to make this fully functional we would need to finally
put in the proper stuff so that tap devices (and the underlying emulated
NICs) would be set offline when their connected network was destroyed,
and then reconnected/set online when the network was re-started. Getting
the networks to behave this way would be useful in general anyway, even
without thinking about the conflicting-networks problem. The one
downside of externally controlling renumbering-on-conflict using an
external script is that it would only work with NetworkManager...
Ideally we would have to bring the guest network links offline and
then online again to force DHCP re-assignment immediately.
Yeah, I think it really makes sense that when a libvirt network is
destroyed, all the tap devices are set offline, and the emulated NICs
are set offline as well; then when a libvirt network is started, we
would go through all devices that are supposed to be connected to that
network, reconnect the taps, set them online, and set the emulated NIC
online. We currently do the reconnection part when libvirtd is restarted
but can't do it immediately when a *network* is restarted because the
network driver has no access to the list of active guests and their
interfaces....
Hmm, we do now maintain the list of ports for each network though, and
it would be possible to expand that to keep the name of the tap device
associated with the port in addition to the other info (e.g. whether or
not the NIC has been set offline via an API call), *but* when a network
is destroyed, all ports registered with that network are also destroyed,
so just expanding the attributes for the ports isn't going to get us
where we need. So, do we want to 1) change it to maintain active ports
for a network when it is destroyed so that they can be easily
reactivated when the network is restarted? Or do we want to 2) change
the network driver to make calls to all registered hypervisor drivers
during a net-start to look for all guest interfaces that think they are
connected to the network? The former sounds much more efficient, but I
don't know how "dirty" it seems to maintain state for something that has
been "destroyed"...
Or maybe we instead need to also add a new API for networks
virNetworkReconnect(), which will use newly expanded info in the network
ports list to reconnect all guest interfaces.
**
On a different sub-topic - it would be nice to provide some stability to
the subnet used for an autoaddr='yes' network (think of the case where
every time a host is booted, libvirt starts its default network when
192.168.122.0/24 is available, but then a short time later a host
interface is always started on the same subnet - that would mean every
time the host booted the exact same destabilizing dance would take place
even though it would be pretty easy to predict the eventually-used
subnet based on past experience).
Although we historically have avoided automatic changes to libvirt
config files by libvirtd itself as much as possible (the only cases I
can think of are when we're modifying the config to take care of some
compatibility problem after an upgrade), what do you think about having
the autoaddr='yes' networks automatically update the config with the
current subnet info? (maybe this would need to only be done if not
starting from a live image or something, or maybe it should just always
be done). This would then be used as the first guess the next time the
network was started. That way we would avoid the need to delay starting
libvirt networks until after host networking was fully up; the subnet
might bounce around a bit that first time, but once a stable address was
found during that first run, it would then be used from the get-go
during all subsequent boots (until/unless something changed and it had
to be changed yet again).
