[openstack-dev] [Neutron][L2Pop][HA Routers] Request for comments for a possible solution
mathieu.rohon at gmail.com
Thu Dec 18 16:43:17 UTC 2014
thanks for working on this bug :
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Gary Kotton <gkotton at vmware.com> wrote:
> On 12/18/14, 2:06 PM, "Mike Kolesnik" <mkolesni at redhat.com> wrote:
>>Hi Neutron community members.
>>I wanted to query the community about a proposal of how to fix HA routers
>>working with L2Population (bug 1365476).
>>This bug is important to fix especially if we want to have HA routers and
>>routers working together.
>>What's happening now?
>>* HA routers use distributed ports, i.e. the port with the same IP & MAC
>> details is applied on all nodes where an L3 agent is hosting this
>>* Currently, the port details have a binding pointing to an arbitrary node
>> and this is not updated.
>>* L2pop takes this "potentially stale" information and uses it to create:
>> 1. A tunnel to the node.
>> 2. An FDB entry that directs traffic for that port to that node.
>> 3. If ARP responder is on, ARP requests will not traverse the network.
>>* Problem is, the master router wouldn't necessarily be running on the
>> reported agent.
>> This means that traffic would not reach the master node but some
>> node where the router master might be running, but might be in another
>> state (standby, fail).
>>What is proposed?
>>Basically the idea is not to do L2Pop for HA router ports that reside on
>>Instead, we would create a tunnel to each node hosting the HA router so
>>the normal learning switch functionality would take care of switching the
>>traffic to the master router.
> In Neutron we just ensure that the MAC address is unique per network.
> Could a duplicate MAC address cause problems here?
gary, AFAIU, from a Neutron POV, there is only one port, which is the
router Port, which is plugged twice. One time per port.
I think that the capacity to bind a port to several host is also a
prerequisite for a clean solution here. This will be provided by
patches to this bug :
>>This way no matter where the master router is currently running, the data
>>plane would know how to forward traffic to it.
>>This solution requires changes on the controller only.
>>What's to gain?
>>* Data plane only solution, independent of the control plane.
>>* Lowest failover time (same as HA routers today).
>>* High backport potential:
>> * No APIs changed/added.
>> * No configuration changes.
>> * No DB changes.
>> * Changes localized to a single file and limited in scope.
>>What's the alternative?
>>An alternative solution would be to have the controller update the port
>>on the single port so that the plain old L2Pop happens and notifies about
>>location of the master router.
>>This basically negates all the benefits of the proposed solution, but is
>>This solution depends on the report-ha-router-master spec which is
>>the implementation phase.
>>It's important to note that these two solutions don't collide and could
>>independently. The one I'm proposing just makes more sense from an HA
>>because of it's benefits which fit the HA methodology of being fast &
>>little outside dependency as possible.
>>It could be done as an initial solution which solves the bug for mechanism
>>drivers that support normal learning switch (OVS), and later kept as an
>>optimization to the more general, controller based, solution which will
>>the issue for any mechanism driver working with L2Pop (Linux Bridge,
>>Would love to hear your thoughts on the subject.
You will have to clearly update the doc to mention that deployment
with Linuxbridge+l2pop are not compatible with HA.
Moreover, this solution is downgrading the l2pop solution, by
disabling the ARP-responder when VMs want to talk to a HA router.
This means that ARP requests will be duplicated to every overlay
tunnel to feed the OVS Mac learning table.
This is something that we were trying to avoid with l2pop. But may be
this is acceptable.
I know that ofagent is also using l2pop, I would like to know if
ofagent deployment will be compatible with the workaround that you are
My concern is that, with DVR, there are at least two major features
that are not compatible with Linuxbridge.
Linuxbridge is not running in the gate. I don't know if anybody is
running a 3rd party testing with Linuxbridge deployments. If anybody
does, it would be great to have it voting on gerrit!
But I really wonder what is the future of linuxbridge compatibility?
should we keep on improving OVS solution without taking into account
the linuxbridge implementation?
>>OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
More information about the OpenStack-dev