Open Stack

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 01:06:46PM +0100, John Garbutt wrote:
> On 17 July 2015 at 11:23, Sean Dague <sean at dague.net> wrote:
> > On 07/16/2015 06:06 PM, Sean M. Collins wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 01:23:29PM PDT, Mathieu Gagné wrote:
> >>> So it looks like there is a missing part in this feature. There should
> >>> be a way to "hide" this information if the instance does not require to
> >>> configure vlan interfaces to make network functional.
> >>
> >> I just commented on the review, but the provider network API extension
> >> is admin only, most likely for the reasons that I think someone has
> >> already mentioned, that it exposes details of the phyiscal network
> >> layout that should not be exposed to tenants.
> >
> > So, clearly, under some circumstances the network operator wants to
> > expose this information, because there was the request for that feature.
> > The question in my mind is what circumstances are those, and what
> > additional information needs to be provided here.
> >
> > There is always a balance between the private cloud case which wants to
> > enable more self service from users (and where the users are often also
> > the operators), and the public cloud case where the users are outsiders
> > and we want to hide as much as possible from them.
> >
> > For instance, would an additional attribute on a provider network that
> > says "this is cool to tell people about" be an acceptable approach? Is
> > there some other creative way to tell our infrastructure that these
> > artifacts are meant to be exposed in this installation?
> >
> > Just kicking around ideas, because I know a pile of gate hardware for
> > everyone to use is at the other side of answers to these questions. And
> > given that we've been running full capacity for days now, keeping this
> > ball moving forward would be great.
> 
> Maybe we just need to add policy around who gets to see that extra
> detail, and maybe hide it by default?
> 
> Would that deal with the concerns here?

I'm not so sure. There are certain Neutron plugins that work with
certain virt drivers (Ironic) that require this information to be passed
to all instances built by that virt driver. However, it doesn't (and
probably shouldn't, as to not confuse cloud-init/etc) need to be passed
to other instances. I think the conditional for passing this as metadata
is going to need to be some combination of operator config, Neutron
config/driver, and virt driver.

I know we don't like networking things to be conditional on the virt
driver, but Ironic is working on feature parity with virt for
networking, and baremetal networking is vastly different than virt
networking. I think we're going to have to accept that.

// jim

> 
> Thanks,
> John
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev