Open Stack

Hi Jack,

Do you mean this change by any chance?
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/77043/

Salvatore


On 23 May 2014 15:10, McCann, Jack <jack.mccann at hp.com> wrote:

>  From the original ask:
>
>
>
> > I know that there is possibility to create port with IP
> > and later connect VM to this port. This solution is almost ok
> > for me but problem is when user delete this instance - then
> > port is also deleted and it is not reserved still for the same
> > user and tenant.
>
>
>
> This sounds like the problem of nova deleting a port that it did not
>
> create.  We could look at a change (likely involving nova and neutron)
>
> such that if I create a port and pass it in to nova boot, nova would
>
> not delete that port when the VM is deleted.
>
>
>
> - Jack
>
>
>
> *From:* Mohammad Banikazemi [mailto:mb at us.ibm.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:41 PM
>
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> *Cc:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] reservation of fixed ip
>
>
>
> Well, for a use case we had in mind we were trying to figure out how to
> simply get an IP address on a subnet. We essentially want to use such an
> address internally by the controller and make sure it is not used for a
> port that gets created on a network with that subnet. In this use case, an
> interface to IPAM for removing an address from the pool of available
> addresses (and the interface to possibly return the address to the pool)
> would be sufficient.
>
> Mohammad
>
> [image: Inactive hide details for Carl Baldwin ---05/22/2014 06:19:16
> PM---If an IP is reserved for a tenant, should the tenant need to]Carl
> Baldwin ---05/22/2014 06:19:16 PM---If an IP is reserved for a tenant,
> should the tenant need to explicitly ask for that specific IP to
>
> From: Carl Baldwin <carl at ecbaldwin.net>
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
> openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>,
> Date: 05/22/2014 06:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] reservation of fixed ip
>  ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> If an IP is reserved for a tenant, should the tenant need to
> explicitly ask for that specific IP to be allocated when creating a
> floating ip or port?  And it would pull from the regular pool if a
> specific IP is not requested.  Or, does the allocator just pull from
> the tenant's reserved pool whenever it needs an IP on a subnet?  If
> the latter, then I think Salvatore's concern still a valid one.
>
> I think if a tenant wants an IP address reserved then he probably has
> a specific purpose for that IP address in mind.  That leads me to
> think that he should be required to pass the specific address when
> creating the associated object in order to make use of it.  We can't
> do that yet with all types of allocations but there are reviews in
> progress [1][2].
>
> Carl
>
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/70286/
> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/83664/
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Sławek Kapłoński <slawek at kaplonski.pl>
> wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> >
> > Dnia Wed, 21 May 2014 23:51:48 +0100
> > Salvatore Orlando <sorlando at nicira.com> napisał:
> >
> >> In principle there is nothing that should prevent us from
> >> implementing an IP reservation mechanism.
> >>
> >> As with anything, the first thing to check is literature or "related
> >> work"! If any other IaaS system is implementing such a mechanism, is
> >> it exposed through the API somehow?
> >> Also this feature is likely to be provided by IPAM systems. If yes,
> >> what constructs do they use?
> >> I do not have the answers to this questions, but I'll try to document
> >> myself; if you have them - please post them here.
> >>
> >> This new feature would probably be baked into neutron's IPAM logic.
> >> When allocating an IP, first check from within the IP reservation
> >> pool, and then if it's not found check from standard allocation pools
> >> (this has non negligible impact on availability ranges management, but
> >> these are implementation details).
> >> Aspects to consider, requirement-wise, are:
> >> 1) Should reservations also be classified by "qualification" of the
> >> port? For instance, is it important to specify that an IP should be
> >> used for the gateway port rather than for a floating IP port?
> >
> > IMHO it is not required when IP is reserved. User should have
> > possibility to reserve such IP for his tenant and later use it as he
> > want (floating ip, instance or whatever)
> >
> >> 2) Are reservations something that an admin could specify on a
> >> tenant-basis (hence an admin API extension), or an implicit mechanism
> >> that can be tuned using configuration variables (for instance create
> >> an IP reservation a for gateway port for a given tenant when a router
> >> gateway is set).
> >>
> >> I apologise if these questions are dumb. I'm just trying to frame this
> >> discussion into something which could then possibly lead to
> >> submitting a specification.
> >>
> >> Salvatore
> >>
> >>
> >> On 21 May 2014 21:37, Collins, Sean <Sean_Collins2 at cable.comcast.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > (Edited the subject since a lot of people filter based on the
> >> > subject line)
> >> >
> >> > I would also be interested in reserved IPs - since we do not deploy
> >> > the layer 3 agent and use the provider networking extension and a
> >> > hardware router.
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 03:46:53PM EDT, Sławek Kapłoński wrote:
> >> > > Hello,
> >> > >
> >> > > Ok, I found that now there is probably no such feature to reserve
> >> > > fixed ip for tenant. So I was thinking about add such feature to
> >> > > neutron. I mean that it should have new table with reserved ips
> >> > > in neutron database and neutron will check this table every time
> >> > > when new port will be created (or updated) and IP should be
> >> > > associated with this port. If user has got reserved IP it should
> >> > > be then used for new port, if IP is reserver by other tenant - it
> >> > > shouldn't be used. What You are thinking about such possibility?
> >> > > Is it possible to add it in some future release of neutron?
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Best regards
> >> > > Sławek Kapłoński
> >> > > slawek at kaplonski.pl
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Dnia Mon, 19 May 2014 20:07:43 +0200
> >> > > Sławek Kapłoński <slawek at kaplonski.pl> napisał:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Hello,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I'm using openstack with neutron and ML2 plugin. Is there any
> >> > > > way to reserve fixed IP from shared external network for one
> >> > > > tenant? I know that there is possibility to create port with IP
> >> > > > and later connect VM to this port. This solution is almost ok
> >> > > > for me but problem is when user delete this instance - then
> >> > > > port is also deleted and it is not reserved still for the same
> >> > > > user and tenant. So maybe there is any solution to reserve it
> >> > > > "permanent"? I know also about floating IPs but I don't use L3
> >> > > > agents so this is probably not for me :)
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >> > > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> >> > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Sean M. Collins
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> >> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards
> > Sławek Kapłoński
> > slawek at kaplonski.pl
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140523/cf920235/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140523/cf920235/attachment.gif>