Open Stack

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!

--deva

> 
> Sincerely,
> 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 [3]
>     doesn't clearly describe it. And based on implementation [1] and [2] 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
>     switch.
>     4. When user request to boot an instance, Nova randomly picks interface [2],
>     it might be a portgroup or single NIC interface. Proposed change [1] 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.
> 
>     Reference:
>     [0] https://review.openstack.org/206163 <https://review.openstack.org/206163>
>     [1] https://review.openstack.org/332177 <https://review.openstack.org/332177>
>     [2]
>     https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/06c537fbe5bb4ac5a3012642c899df815872267c/nova/network/neutronv2/api.py#L270
>     <https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/06c537fbe5bb4ac5a3012642c899df815872267c/nova/network/neutronv2/api.py#L270>
>     [3]
>     https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/ironic-specs/specs/not-implemented/ironic-ml2-integration.html
>     <https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/ironic-specs/specs/not-implemented/ironic-ml2-integration.html>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>