[heat][neutron] improving extraroute support
ramishra at redhat.com
Mon Apr 15 14:39:45 UTC 2019
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 7:48 PM Bence Romsics <bence.romsics at gmail.com>
> Hi Heat and Neutron folks,
> I'm wondering how could I improve support for extra routes for one of
> our users. In this email I'd like to get your input (from both Heat
> and Neutron folks) in which direction should I start before I sit down
> to write the relevant blueprints and RFEs. This will be a bit long,
> please bear with me.
> As you know a neutron router can have extra static routing table
> entries as the 'routes' attribute like this (please see the api-ref in
> $ openstack router show router1 -f value -c routes
> destination='10.1.0.0/24', gateway='10.0.0.11'
> destination='10.2.0.0/24', gateway='10.0.0.12'
> To my best knowledge the whole set of extra routes must be updated at
> once which easily leads to lost updates if multiple clients modify
> this attribute concurrently (imagine client A and B working
> concurrently, for example both reads routes [r1], client A writes [r1,
> r2], client B writes [r1, r3]; depending on timing either r2 or r3
> will be lost).
> Heat has an unsupported resource OS::Neutron::ExtraRoute  to front
> Neutron extra routes. For example:
> heat_template_version: '2015-04-30'
> type: OS::Neutron::ExtraRoute
> destination: '10.1.0.0/24'
> nexthop: '10.0.0.11'
> router_id: 'd544b5c5-d4d2-4b52-aaa8-ef4b9fa3e154'
> The Heat resource represents a single extra route out of the many in
> the router's routes attribute. If you have multiple
> OS::Neutron::ExtraRoute resources Heat by default handles them
> concurrently leading to the lost update problem. You can easily
> reproduce the problem just by having 10 extra routes in a template.
> The stack creation will succeed, but the router in fact will have only
> 6-7 (the exact number changes based on timing) extra routes. AFAIU
> this is exactly why this was marked unsupported. (Please let me know
> if you know other reasons.)
I think this had been discussed on several occasions before and one of
suggestions from the neutron team was to use compare-and-swap update api 
to avoid race conditions.
As a workaround I suggested our user a hack to serialize the
> OS::Neutron::ExtraRoute resources by 'depends_on'.
> But which way should I go if I want to fix this properly?
> way #1 - changes in Heat only: Introduce a new Heat resource
> OS::Neutron::ExtraRoutes (please notice the plural) which can
> represent the whole routes attribute of a router (i.e. multiple extra
> routes in a single resource). This will not solve the design
> shortcomings of the neutron extraroute API, but it can at least
> express what can be done in the Neutron API as is. Lost updates of
> multiple stacks editing the same router's routes are still possible.
way #2 - changes in Heat and Neutron: Introduce a new Neutron
> extension with a better API (either extraroutes as a top level
> resource, each object with a router_id or an action map a'la
> add/remove_router_interface to edit extra routes on the server side).
> This new API would work on the same DB tables and backends as the old.
> The old API would be kept for backwards compatibility. But if a new
> user exclusively uses the new API it can work concurrently. Then
> introduce a new Heat resource (or change the existing unsupported one)
> to use this new Neutron API. This is obviously more work than the
> first option.
> Which one do you prefer and why? Or let me know please if I missed a
> better alternative.
> In this thread I hope to get a cross-project agreement of this between
> Heat and Neutron so I can go ahead and open the relevant Heat and
> Neutron blueprints where we can focus only on each projects' internal
> Thanks in advance,
> Bence Romsics
> irc: rubasov
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openstack-discuss