<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 11/27/2012 06:06 AM, Mark McClain wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:3CD1FD21-B1CB-4EBD-BF8C-FCC4E79505E9@dreamhost.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">All-
I wanted to continue the discussion from the today's meeting about the L3 agents. The two proposed solutions take different approaches, so I think we first should agree on what we're trying to solve: scaling or availability or both.
Nachi and Yong call their proposal "scheduler", but really it is really a horizontal scale out model. Scheduling is the means they've chosen to distribute the load. While their solution scales out horizontally, it does not address fully availability. Gary's proposal fronts the l3 services with a load balancing like service. It addresses availability by using an active/standby setup, but does not cover what happens when vertical scaling maxes out due to too many tenant networks and/or routers to fit on a physical node.
I think the answer is to do both by incorporating a combination of the two proposals. The L3 and DHCP agents are different enough that we may not be able to find a universal solution and that's is ok.
Lastly, deployers have different SLAs and may even have different SLAs for different tenants, so we need to make sure we have a foundation for vendors and deployers to meet their varying SLAs.
Thoughts?</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
It would be great if we could have a universal solution. I feel that
due to the different roles of the services this will be very
challenging to achieve. I'll try and explain in more detail below.<br>
<br>
<b>DHCP agents</b>:<br>
At the moment each DHCP agent is able to allocate the IP address for
a specific mac address. Each agent has this information as it is
received from the notifications from the Quantum service. The
problems with the DHCP agent are as follows (please feel free to add
or remove):<br>
i. For each networking providing DHCP services (currently only
implemented by dnsmasq in Quantum) a dnsmasq process is created by
the agent. This is problematic when the number of networks is large.<br>
ii. When interacting with Nova firewall rules are created to enable
the traffic to arrive from the DHCP server to the VM. This is
problematic if the DHCP agent terminates and the VM wishes to renew
a IP.<br>
<br>
Originally I suggested that we use a load balancer to distribute the
traffic amongst the DHCP agents. Sadly this is not relevant for two
reasons:<br>
i. HA proxy does not have UDP support. This would have enabled a
virtual IP address for the DHCP server => no changes to the nova
rules. The load balancer would have detected if agents were down and
redirect traffic to agents that are up.<br>
ii. It does not address point #ii above. I suggested to have a flag
or configuration variable for each agent that indicate a list of
networks that the agent can service. This will enable the agent to
limit the resources that can be consumed on a specific host.
Naturally the devil is in the details on how one can go about this
if it is relevant.<br>
<br>
I think that if we had the "supported list of networks" configurable
for the DHCP agents then the vendor can deploy as many DHCP agents
as she/he wishes. I would prefer that this information is not on the
Quantum service but locally on the agents. This will offer a
solution for scale and high availability of DHCP resources.<br>
<br>
Only problem is the ensuring that the DHCP traffic gets to the VM
:). I do not think that it is feasible to update the hosts each time
with a rule for a new DHCP agent that is added. One option to
consider to to rewrite the source IP of the traffic sent from the
DHCP agent. This is essentially what is done by a load balancer.<br>
<br>
<b>L3 agents</b>:<br>
Problems here are:<br>
i. HA - what if a L3 agent goes down.<br>
ii. Scale - how can we deploy a number of l3 agents<br>
iii. Amount of firewall rules<br>
<br>
In the first case if the L3 agent goes down then someone accessing a
floating IP will be unable to access that IP. This is something that
is critical for anyone running a cloud.<br>
<br>
I have thought about a number of options but each has its
shortcomings:<br>
i. L3 agents to run VRRP. This will enable l3 agents to work in an
active backup pair. This requires a number of changes to the agent.
Each agent will have the same configuration enabling them to treat
inbound and outbound traffic.<br>
ii. Transparent load balancing - HA proxy does not support this<br>
iii. Having the agents rewrite the destination MAC address of the
default GW (the l3 agent). This solves outbound traffic but inbound
is problematic<br>
iv. Running l3 agents on each host could ensure that the traffic
generated on those hosts has floating IP's. This would require us to
change the implementation of the l3 agents to only build firewall
rules for devices on the HOST. <br>
<br>
None of the above deal with the firewall rules. This is something
that can be addressed in a similar way to the DHCP agent with the L3
agents specifically indicating which routers it will support (this
is already implemented when namespaces are not supported)<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
Gary<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:3CD1FD21-B1CB-4EBD-BF8C-FCC4E79505E9@dreamhost.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
mark
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>