[openstack-dev] [Fuel][TripleO] NIC bonding for OpenStack

Clint Byrum clint at fewbar.com
Tue Feb 11 17:26:29 UTC 2014


Excerpts from Andrey Danin's message of 2014-02-11 08:42:46 -0800:
> Hi Openstackers,
> 
> We are working on link aggregation support in Fuel. We wonder what are the
> most desirable types of bonding now in datacenters. We had some issues (see
> below) with OVS bond in LACP mode, and it turned out that standard Linux
> bonding (attached to OVS bridges) was a better option in our setup.
> 
> I want to hear your opinion, guys. What types of bonding do you think are
> better now in terms of stability and performance, so that we can properly
> support them for OpenStack installations.
> 
> Also, we are wondering if there any plans to support bonding in TripleO,
> and how you guys would like to see it be implemented? What is the general
> approach for such complex network configurations for TripleO? We would love
> to extract this piece from Fuel and make it fully independent, so that the
> larger community can use it and we could work collaboratively on it. Right
> now it is actually already granular and can be reused in other projects,
> and implemented as a separated puppet module:
> https://github.com/stackforge/fuel-library/tree/master/deployment/puppet/l23network

For Nova baremetal and Ironic, they're going to feed MACs to Neutron which
it would then serve DHCP for. I am not sure how that relates to bonding,
and if the MAC would change for DHCP requests after bonding is configured,
but that would have to be addressed and tested.

Otherwise, it would work largely the same way I think. Just configure the
image to read config parameters from the Heat metadata and subsequently
configure bonding. It is even possible that the facter cfn plugin could
be made to work with a little bit of modification, perhaps allowing you
to forklift the puppet modules into a diskimage-builder element:

https://github.com/oppian/oppian-puppet-modules/blob/master/modules/cfn/lib/facter/cfn.rb

I've heard of no plans for supporting this configuration of servers,
but I see no reason it couldn't be added as an option if it was important
to deployers.



More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list