Open Stack

multi-nic added an extra virtual interface on a seprate network, like
adding a port:
http://docs.openstack.org/trunk/openstack-compute/admin/content/using-multi-nics.html

I think we need to keep a nova-network focused api extension, and a
separate neutron focused api extension, because we have not yet
removed neutron. It should probably proxy the neutron information
still, so people can more easily transition between nova-network and
neutron.

I agree we should probably slim down the neturon focused api extension.

Howerver, it should probably include network-ids and port-ids for each
port, if we still support both:
    nova boot --image <img> --flavor <flavor> --nic net-id=<net1-id>
--nic net-id=<net2-id> <vm-name>
and this:
   nova boot --image <img> --flavor <flavor> --nic port-id=<port-id> <vm-name>

Longer term, we still need the metadata service to provide networking
information, so there will be a nova-api that has to proxy info from
neutron, but I agree we should reduce where we can.

John

On 7 August 2013 10:08, Alex Xu <xuhj at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Hi, guys,
>
> Currently we have one core and two extensions that related network in Nova
> API v3.
> They are ips, attach_interface and multinic. I have two questions for them.
>
> The first question is about ips and attach_interface. The below was the
> index's response
> of ips and attach_interface:
> ips:
> {
>     "addresses": {
>         "net1": [
>             {
>                 "addr": "10.0.0.8",
>                 "mac_addr": "fa:16:3e:c2:0f:aa",
>                 "type": "fixed",
>                 "version": 4
>             },
>             {
>                 "addr": "30.0.0.5",
>                 "mac_addr": "fa:16:3e:c2:0f:aa",
>                 "type": "floating",
>                 "version": 4
>             }
>         ]
>     }
> }
>
> attach_interface:
> {
>     "interface_attachments": [
>         {
>             "fixed_ips": [
>                 {
>                     "ip_address": "10.0.0.8",
>                     "subnet_id": "f84f7d51-758c-4a02-a4c9-171ed988a884"
>                 }
>             ],
>             "mac_addr": "fa:16:3e:c2:0f:aa",
>             "net_id": "b6ba34f1-5504-4aca-825b-04511c104802",
>             "port_id": "3660380b-0075-4115-be96-f08b41ccdf5d",
>             "port_state": "ACTIVE"
>         }
>     ]
> }
>
> The problem is the responses are similar, but just with different view,  and
> all the information can
> get from Neutron directly. I think we didn't want to proxy Neutron through
> Nova. So how about
> we merge ips and attach_interface into an new extension. The new extension
> will be include the
> things as below:
> 1. Extend the detail of servers to list the uuid of port. User can get more
> information from Neutron
> by port uuid.
> 2. Attach and detach interface that move from extension attach_interface.
> 3. Extend the creation of servers to support network (The patch already here
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/36615/)
>
> The second question is about multinic. Looking into the code, multinic just
> add fixed_ip for server's port.
> That can be done by Neutron API directly too. But there are
> inject_network_info and reset_network
> in the code. Only xen and vmware's driver implement that function. I'm not
> familiar with xen and
> vmware, I guess it use guest agent to update the guest network. If I am
> right, I think we didn't
> encourage using that way to update guest network.There are api for
> inject_network_info and reset_network
> in extension admin-actions also. I think we can keep them. But can we delete
> multinic for V3?
>
> Thanks
> Alex
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>