Open Stack

I think the mismatch of expectations between the normal use-case and yours
is that you have SNAT disabled on the tenant routers so you need upstream
routes to point back to the tenant routers. Is that correct?

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Abhishek Chanda <abhishek.lists at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> We are trying to deploy L3 HA using Kilo. Our model is to have a
> single public network for floating IPs and that each tenant will have
> it's own neutron router connected to internal networks. We have a
> mechanism to use the neutron API to find out which node has the active
> router. That route is then announced to upstream routers. The br-ex
> interface on the nodes which does not have the active routers are
> downed. This works fine for a single tenant, with one router. Now, for
> a cloud with multiple tenants, each having their own tenant routers,
> we have seen that often active routers end up on different nodes. That
> messes up the return path of a packet from outside the cloud. My
> questions are:
>
> 1. Is the deployment model with one public network and multiple tenant
> routers compatible with L3 HA or does it expect any other model?
> 2. How are people solving the problem of different nodes hosting the
> active router? How do we route back to it?
>
> If neutron used a single keepalived instance for all the routers, this
> wouldn't be an issue. Are we missing something?
>
> Thanks
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list:
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
> Post to     : openstack at lists.openstack.org
> Unsubscribe :
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
>



-- 
Kevin Benton
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/attachments/20151015/3fe2c40f/attachment.html>