Open Stack

On 2013年08月07日 21:42, Alex Xu wrote:
> On 2013年08月07日 17:38, John Garbutt wrote:
>> multi-nic added an extra virtual interface on a seprate network, like
>> adding a port:
>> http://docs.openstack.org/trunk/openstack-compute/admin/content/using-multi-nics.html 
>>
> That just describe create instance with multinic, that we will 
> support. Still have problem
> with action add_fixed_ip and remove_fixed_ip in extension multinic. 
> Those action
> invoke inject_network_info and reset_network.
>>
>> I think we need to keep a nova-network focused api extension, and a
>> separate neutron focused api extension, because we have not yet
>> removed neutron. It should probably proxy the neutron information
>> still, so people can more easily transition between nova-network and
>> neutron.
> Sound good, thanks.
Nova v2 api will be saved with v3 for some time, I think.  Why not just 
keep neutron api extension in v3?
I think people can have enough time to understand the difference between 
v2 and v3. If we keep
api for nova-network in v3, we will still face the same problem when 
next api version occur  or when
remove the nova-network.
>> I agree we should probably slim down the neturon focused api extension.
>>
>> Howerver, it should probably include network-ids and port-ids for each
>> port, if we still support both:
>>      nova boot --image <img> --flavor <flavor> --nic net-id=<net1-id>
>> --nic net-id=<net2-id> <vm-name>
>> and this:
>>     nova boot --image <img> --flavor <flavor> --nic port-id=<port-id> 
>> <vm-name>
> Yes, we still support those. But why we need network-ids?
>> Longer term, we still need the metadata service to provide networking
>> information, so there will be a nova-api that has to proxy info from
>> neutron, but I agree we should reduce where we can.
agree with this. There will be a nova-api that has to proxy info from
neutron, but we should reduce where we can.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On 7 August 2013 10:08, Alex Xu <xuhj at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>> Hi, guys,
>>>
>>> Currently we have one core and two extensions that related network 
>>> in Nova
>>> API v3.
>>> They are ips, attach_interface and multinic. I have two questions 
>>> for them.
>>>
>>> The first question is about ips and attach_interface. The below was the
>>> index's response
>>> of ips and attach_interface:
>>> ips:
>>> {
>>>      "addresses": {
>>>          "net1": [
>>>              {
>>>                  "addr": "10.0.0.8",
>>>                  "mac_addr": "fa:16:3e:c2:0f:aa",
>>>                  "type": "fixed",
>>>                  "version": 4
>>>              },
>>>              {
>>>                  "addr": "30.0.0.5",
>>>                  "mac_addr": "fa:16:3e:c2:0f:aa",
>>>                  "type": "floating",
>>>                  "version": 4
>>>              }
>>>          ]
>>>      }
>>> }
>>>
>>> attach_interface:
>>> {
>>>      "interface_attachments": [
>>>          {
>>>              "fixed_ips": [
>>>                  {
>>>                      "ip_address": "10.0.0.8",
>>>                      "subnet_id": 
>>> "f84f7d51-758c-4a02-a4c9-171ed988a884"
>>>                  }
>>>              ],
>>>              "mac_addr": "fa:16:3e:c2:0f:aa",
>>>              "net_id": "b6ba34f1-5504-4aca-825b-04511c104802",
>>>              "port_id": "3660380b-0075-4115-be96-f08b41ccdf5d",
>>>              "port_state": "ACTIVE"
>>>          }
>>>      ]
>>> }
>>>
>>> The problem is the responses are similar, but just with different 
>>> view,  and
>>> all the information can
>>> get from Neutron directly. I think we didn't want to proxy Neutron 
>>> through
>>> Nova. So how about
>>> we merge ips and attach_interface into an new extension. The new 
>>> extension
>>> will be include the
>>> things as below:
>>> 1. Extend the detail of servers to list the uuid of port. User can 
>>> get more
>>> information from Neutron
>>> by port uuid.
>>> 2. Attach and detach interface that move from extension 
>>> attach_interface.
>>> 3. Extend the creation of servers to support network (The patch 
>>> already here
>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/36615/)
>>>
>>> The second question is about multinic. Looking into the code, 
>>> multinic just
>>> add fixed_ip for server's port.
>>> That can be done by Neutron API directly too. But there are
>>> inject_network_info and reset_network
>>> in the code. Only xen and vmware's driver implement that function. 
>>> I'm not
>>> familiar with xen and
>>> vmware, I guess it use guest agent to update the guest network. If I am
>>> right, I think we didn't
>>> encourage using that way to update guest network.There are api for
>>> inject_network_info and reset_network
>>> in extension admin-actions also. I think we can keep them. But can 
>>> we delete
>>> multinic for V3?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Alex
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev