Status of IPv4 / IPv6 dual stack?
Hi, as the documentation sends mixed signals in https://docs.ceph.com/en/latest/rados/configuration/network-config-ref/#ipv4... "Note Binding to IPv4 is enabled by default, so if you just add the option to bind to IPv6 you’ll actually put yourself into dual stack mode." and https://docs.ceph.com/en/latest/rados/configuration/msgr2/#address-formats "Note The ability to bind to multiple ports has paved the way for dual-stack IPv4 and IPv6 support. That said, dual-stack operation is not yet supported as of Quincy v17.2.0." just the quick questions: Is a dual stacked networking with IPv4 and IPv6 now supported or not? From which version on is it considered stable? Are OSDs now able to register themselves with two IP addresses in the cluster map? MONs too? Regards -- Robert Sander Heinlein Consulting GmbH Schwedter Str. 8/9b, 10119 Berlin https://www.heinlein-support.de Tel: 030 / 405051-43 Fax: 030 / 405051-19 Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg - HRB 220009 B Geschäftsführer: Peer Heinlein - Sitz: Berlin
On 15-09-2023 09:25, Robert Sander wrote:
Hi,
as the documentation sends mixed signals in
https://docs.ceph.com/en/latest/rados/configuration/network-config-ref/#ipv4...
"Note
Binding to IPv4 is enabled by default, so if you just add the option to bind to IPv6 you’ll actually put yourself into dual stack mode."
and
https://docs.ceph.com/en/latest/rados/configuration/msgr2/#address-formats
"Note
The ability to bind to multiple ports has paved the way for dual-stack IPv4 and IPv6 support. That said, dual-stack operation is not yet supported as of Quincy v17.2.0."
just the quick questions:
Is a dual stacked networking with IPv4 and IPv6 now supported or not? From which version on is it considered stable?
IIIRC, the "enable dual" stack PR's were more or less "accidentally" merged, at least that's what Radoslaw Zarzynski (added to CC) told me during the developer summit at Cephalocon in Amsterdam. There was a discussion about dual stack support after that. I voted in favor of not supporting dual stack. Currently there are no IPv6 (only) tests that are performed, it's IPv4 only. Let alone dual stack testing setups. It gets complicated quickly if you want to test all sort of combinations (some daemons with dual stack, some IPv4 only, some IPv6 only, etc.).
Are OSDs now able to register themselves with two IP addresses in the cluster map? MONs too?
At least the OSDs and MDSs can, and caused trouble for kernels with messenger v2 support. We had to disable IPv4 explicitly to get rid of the IPv4 "0.0.0.0" addresses in the MDS map. See this thread [1]. Gr. Stefan [1]: https://lists.ceph.io/hyperkitty/list/ceph-users@ceph.io/thread/GLNS2S6BK7Q5...
Hello, a note: we are running IPv6 only clusters since 2017, in case anyone has questions. In earlier releases no tunings were necessary, later releases need the bind parameters. BR, Nico Stefan Kooman <stefan@bit.nl> writes:
On 15-09-2023 09:25, Robert Sander wrote:
Hi, as the documentation sends mixed signals in https://docs.ceph.com/en/latest/rados/configuration/network-config-ref/#ipv4... "Note Binding to IPv4 is enabled by default, so if you just add the option to bind to IPv6 you’ll actually put yourself into dual stack mode." and https://docs.ceph.com/en/latest/rados/configuration/msgr2/#address-formats "Note The ability to bind to multiple ports has paved the way for dual-stack IPv4 and IPv6 support. That said, dual-stack operation is not yet supported as of Quincy v17.2.0." just the quick questions: Is a dual stacked networking with IPv4 and IPv6 now supported or not? From which version on is it considered stable?
IIIRC, the "enable dual" stack PR's were more or less "accidentally" merged, at least that's what Radoslaw Zarzynski (added to CC) told me during the developer summit at Cephalocon in Amsterdam. There was a discussion about dual stack support after that. I voted in favor of not supporting dual stack. Currently there are no IPv6 (only) tests that are performed, it's IPv4 only. Let alone dual stack testing setups. It gets complicated quickly if you want to test all sort of combinations (some daemons with dual stack, some IPv4 only, some IPv6 only, etc.).
Are OSDs now able to register themselves with two IP addresses in the cluster map? MONs too?
At least the OSDs and MDSs can, and caused trouble for kernels with messenger v2 support. We had to disable IPv4 explicitly to get rid of the IPv4 "0.0.0.0" addresses in the MDS map. See this thread [1].
Gr. Stefan
[1]: https://lists.ceph.io/hyperkitty/list/ceph-users@ceph.io/thread/GLNS2S6BK7Q5...
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
-- Sustainable and modern Infrastructures by ungleich.ch
On 9/18/23 11:19, Stefan Kooman wrote:
IIIRC, the "enable dual" stack PR's were more or less "accidentally" merged
So this looks like a big NO on the dual stack support for Ceph. I just need an answer, I do not need dual stack support. It would be nice if the documentation was a little be clearer on this topic. Regards -- Robert Sander Heinlein Consulting GmbH Schwedter Str. 8/9b, 10119 Berlin https://www.heinlein-support.de Tel: 030 / 405051-43 Fax: 030 / 405051-19 Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg - HRB 220009 B Geschäftsführer: Peer Heinlein - Sitz: Berlin
I have removed dual-stack-mode-related information from the documentation on the assumption that dual-stack mode was planned but never fully implemented. See https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/65631. See https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/57051. Hat-tip to Dan van der Ster, who bumped this thread for me. Zac Dover Upstream Documentation Ceph Foundation On Wednesday, September 20th, 2023 at 4:36 PM, Robert Sander <r.sander@heinlein-support.de> wrote:
On 9/18/23 11:19, Stefan Kooman wrote:
IIIRC, the "enable dual" stack PR's were more or less "accidentally" merged
So this looks like a big NO on the dual stack support for Ceph.
I just need an answer, I do not need dual stack support.
It would be nice if the documentation was a little be clearer on this topic.
Regards -- Robert Sander Heinlein Consulting GmbH Schwedter Str. 8/9b, 10119 Berlin
https://www.heinlein-support.de
Tel: 030 / 405051-43 Fax: 030 / 405051-19
Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg - HRB 220009 B Geschäftsführer: Peer Heinlein - Sitz: Berlin _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
I have removed dual-stack-mode-related information from the documentation on the assumption that dual-stack mode was planned but never fully implemented.
See https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/65631.
See https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/57051.
Hat-tip to Dan van der Ster, who bumped this thread for me.
"I will remove references to dual-stack mode in the documentation because i" I prefer if it would state that dual stack is not supported (and maybe why). By default I would assume such a thing is supported. I would not even suspect it could be an issue.
Sounds like an opportunity for you to submit an expansive code PR to implement it.
On Apr 23, 2024, at 04:28, Marc <Marc@f1-outsourcing.eu> wrote:
I have removed dual-stack-mode-related information from the documentation on the assumption that dual-stack mode was planned but never fully implemented.
See https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/65631.
See https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/57051.
Hat-tip to Dan van der Ster, who bumped this thread for me.
"I will remove references to dual-stack mode in the documentation because i"
I prefer if it would state that dual stack is not supported (and maybe why). By default I would assume such a thing is supported. I would not even suspect it could be an issue.
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
participants (6)
-
Anthony D'Atri
-
Marc
-
Nico Schottelius
-
Robert Sander
-
Stefan Kooman
-
Zac Dover