[openstack-dev] [ironic] static Portgroup support.
Devananda van der Veen
devananda.vdv at gmail.com
Wed Aug 10 20:40:45 UTC 2016
On 08/09/2016 01:28 AM, Vasyl Saienko wrote:
> Hello Ironic'ers!
> We've recorded a demo that shows how static portgroup works at the moment:
> Flat network scenario: https://youtu.be/vBlH0ie6Lm4
> Multitenant network scenario: https://youtu.be/Kk5Cc_K1tV8
Awesome! Thank you for creating & sharing these demos!
> Vasyl Saienko
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Vasyl Saienko <vsaienko at mirantis.com
> <mailto:vsaienko at mirantis.com>> wrote:
> Hello Community,
> Current portgroup scenario is not fully clear for me. The related spec 
> doesn't clearly describe it. And based on implementation  and  I guess
> it should work in the following fashion for node with 3 NICs, where eth1 and
> eth2 are members of Porgroup Po0/1
> Node network connection info:
> eth1 (aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:f1) <---> Gig0/1
> eth2 (aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:f2) <---> Gig0/2
> eth3 (aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:f3) <---> Gig0/3
> For FLAT network scenario:
> 1. Administrator enrol ironic node.
> 2. Administrator creates a 3 ports for each interface, and a portgroup that
> contains eth0 and eth1 ports.
> 3. The ports Gig0/1 and Gig0/2 are added to portgroup Po0/1 manually on the
> 4. When user request to boot an instance, Nova randomly picks interface ,
> it might be a portgroup or single NIC interface. Proposed change  do not
> allow to specify what exactly network type we would like to use single NIC
> or portgroup.
> For multitenancy case:
> All looks the same, in addition administrator adds local_link_connection
> information for each port (local_link_connection 'port_id' field is 'Gig0/1'
> for eth1, 'Gig0/2' for eth2 and 'Gig0/3' for eth3, ). Ironic send this
> information to Neutron who plugs ports to needed network.
> The same user-scenario is available at the moment without any changes to
> Nova or Ironic. The difference is that administrator creates one port for
> single interface eth3 with local_link_connection 'port_id'='Gig0/3', and a
> port that is a logical representation of portgroup (eth1 and eth2) with
> local_link_connection 'port_id'='Po0/1'.
> Please let me know if I've missed something or misunderstood current
> portgroup scenario.
>  https://review.openstack.org/206163 <https://review.openstack.org/206163>
>  https://review.openstack.org/332177 <https://review.openstack.org/332177>
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
More information about the OpenStack-dev