Open Stack

Having Nova make assumptions isn't the right way to do this though. To
support this I would rather see an ML2 driver that informs Nova to pass
tagging info to the instance via the port binding info. Only neutron knows
which one is appropriate based on the network configuration.
On Jul 20, 2015 1:19 PM, "Devananda van der Veen" <devananda.vdv at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 5:42 AM Sam Stoelinga <sammiestoel at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 on Kevin Benton's comments.
>> Ironic should have integration with switches where the switches are SDN
>> compatible. The individual bare metal node should not care which vlan,
>> vxlan or other translation is programmed at the switch. The individual bare
>> metal nodes just knows I have 2 nics and and these are on Neutron network
>> x. The SDN controller is responsible for making sure the baremetal node
>> only has access to Neutron Network x through changing the switch
>> configuration dynamically.
>>
>> Making an individual baremetal have access to several vlans and let the
>> baremetal node configure a vlan tag at the baremetal node itself is a big
>> security risk and should not be supported.
>>
>
> I was previously of this opinion, and have changed my mind.
>
> While I agree that this is true in a multi-tenant case and requires an
> SDN-capable TOR, there are users (namely, openstack-infra) asking us to
> support a single tenant with a statically-configured TOR, where cloud-init
> is used to pass in the (external, unchangeable) VLAN configuration to the
> bare metal instance.
>
> -Deva
>
>
>
>> Unless an operator specifically configures a baremetal node to be vlan
>> trunk.
>>
>> Sam Stoelinga
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 5:10 AM, Kevin Benton <blak111 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > which requires VLAN info to be pushed to the host. I keep hearing
>>> "bare metal will never need to know about VLANs" so I want to quash that
>>> ASAP.
>>>
>>> That's leaking implementation details though if the bare metal host only
>>> needs to be on one network. It also creates a security risk if the bare
>>> metal node is untrusted.
>>>
>>> If the tagging is to make it so it can access multiple networks, then
>>> that makes sense for now but it should ultimately be replaced by the vlan
>>> trunk ports extension being worked on this cycle that decouples the
>>> underlying network transport from what gets tagged to the VM/bare metal.
>>> On Jul 17, 2015 11:47 AM, "Jim Rollenhagen" <jim at jimrollenhagen.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 10:56:36AM -0600, Kevin Benton wrote:
>>>> > Check out my comments on the review. Only Neutron knows whether or
>>>> not an
>>>> > instance needs to do manual tagging based on the plugin/driver loaded.
>>>> >
>>>> > For example, Ironic/bare metal ports can be bound by neutron with a
>>>> correct
>>>> > driver so they shouldn't get the VLAN information at the instance
>>>> level in
>>>> > those cases. Nova has no way to know whether Neutron is configured
>>>> this way
>>>> > so Neutron should have an explicit response in the port binding
>>>> information
>>>> > indicating that an instance needs to tag.
>>>>
>>>> Agree. However, I just want to point out that there are neutron drivers
>>>> that exist today[0] that support bonded NICs with trunked VLANs, which
>>>> requires VLAN info to be pushed to the host. I keep hearing "bare metal
>>>> will never need to know about VLANs" so I want to quash that ASAP.
>>>>
>>>> As far as Neutron sending the flag to decide whether the instance should
>>>> tag packets, +1, I think that should work.
>>>>
>>>> // jim
>>>> >
>>>> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Jim Rollenhagen <
>>>> jim at jimrollenhagen.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 01:06:46PM +0100, John Garbutt wrote:
>>>> > > > On 17 July 2015 at 11:23, Sean Dague <sean at dague.net> wrote:
>>>> > > > > On 07/16/2015 06:06 PM, Sean M. Collins wrote:
>>>> > > > >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 01:23:29PM PDT, Mathieu Gagné wrote:
>>>> > > > >>> So it looks like there is a missing part in this feature.
>>>> There
>>>> > > should
>>>> > > > >>> be a way to "hide" this information if the instance does not
>>>> require
>>>> > > to
>>>> > > > >>> configure vlan interfaces to make network functional.
>>>> > > > >>
>>>> > > > >> I just commented on the review, but the provider network API
>>>> extension
>>>> > > > >> is admin only, most likely for the reasons that I think
>>>> someone has
>>>> > > > >> already mentioned, that it exposes details of the phyiscal
>>>> network
>>>> > > > >> layout that should not be exposed to tenants.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > So, clearly, under some circumstances the network operator
>>>> wants to
>>>> > > > > expose this information, because there was the request for that
>>>> > > feature.
>>>> > > > > The question in my mind is what circumstances are those, and
>>>> what
>>>> > > > > additional information needs to be provided here.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > There is always a balance between the private cloud case which
>>>> wants to
>>>> > > > > enable more self service from users (and where the users are
>>>> often also
>>>> > > > > the operators), and the public cloud case where the users are
>>>> outsiders
>>>> > > > > and we want to hide as much as possible from them.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > For instance, would an additional attribute on a provider
>>>> network that
>>>> > > > > says "this is cool to tell people about" be an acceptable
>>>> approach? Is
>>>> > > > > there some other creative way to tell our infrastructure that
>>>> these
>>>> > > > > artifacts are meant to be exposed in this installation?
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Just kicking around ideas, because I know a pile of gate
>>>> hardware for
>>>> > > > > everyone to use is at the other side of answers to these
>>>> questions. And
>>>> > > > > given that we've been running full capacity for days now,
>>>> keeping this
>>>> > > > > ball moving forward would be great.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Maybe we just need to add policy around who gets to see that extra
>>>> > > > detail, and maybe hide it by default?
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Would that deal with the concerns here?
>>>> > >
>>>> > > I'm not so sure. There are certain Neutron plugins that work with
>>>> > > certain virt drivers (Ironic) that require this information to be
>>>> passed
>>>> > > to all instances built by that virt driver. However, it doesn't (and
>>>> > > probably shouldn't, as to not confuse cloud-init/etc) need to be
>>>> passed
>>>> > > to other instances. I think the conditional for passing this as
>>>> metadata
>>>> > > is going to need to be some combination of operator config, Neutron
>>>> > > config/driver, and virt driver.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > I know we don't like networking things to be conditional on the virt
>>>> > > driver, but Ironic is working on feature parity with virt for
>>>> > > networking, and baremetal networking is vastly different than virt
>>>> > > networking. I think we're going to have to accept that.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > // jim
>>>> > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Thanks,
>>>> > > > John
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > >
>>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>>> > > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>>> > > > Unsubscribe:
>>>> > > OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>>> > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>>> > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>>> > > Unsubscribe:
>>>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>>> > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Kevin Benton
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>>> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>>> > Unsubscribe:
>>>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>>> Unsubscribe:
>>>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> Unsubscribe:
>>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe:
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150720/a2ffdad5/attachment.html>