[openstack-dev] [Neutron][os-vif] Expanding vif capability for wiring trunk ports
rawlin.peters at hpe.com
Wed Jun 15 18:01:50 UTC 2016
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 6:27 PM, Kevin Benton (kevin at benton.pub) wrote:
> >which generates an arbitrary name
> I'm not a fan of this approach because it requires coordinated assumptions.
> With the OVS hybrid plug strategy we have to make guesses on the agent side
> about the presence of bridges with specific names that we never explicitly
> requested and that we were never explicitly told about. So we end up with code
> like  that is looking for a particular end of a veth pair it just hopes is
> there so the rules have an effect.
I don't think this should be viewed as a downside of Strategy 1 because, at
least when we use patch port pairs, we can easily get the peer name from the
port on br-int, then use the equivalent of "ovs-vsctl iface-to-br <peer name>"
to get the name of the bridge. If we allow supporting veth pairs to implement
the subports, then getting the arbitrary trunk bridge/veth names isn't as
This also brings up the question: do we even need to support veth pairs over
patch port pairs anymore? Are there any distros out there that support
openstack but not OVS patch ports?
> >it seems that the LinuxBridge implementation can simply use an L2 agent
> >extension for creating the vlan interfaces for the subports
> LinuxBridge implementation is the same regardless of the strategy for OVS. The
> whole reason we have to come up with these alternative approaches for OVS is
> because we can't use the obvious architecture of letting it plug into the
> integration bridge due to VLANs already being used for network isolation. I'm
> not sure pushing complexity out to os-vif to deal with this is a great
> long-term strategy.
The complexity we'd be pushing out to os-vif is not much worse than the current
complexity of the hybrid_ovs strategy already in place today.
> >Also, we didn’t make the OVS agent monitor for new linux bridges in the
> >hybrid_ovs strategy so that Neutron could be responsible for creating the veth
> Linux Bridges are outside of the domain of OVS and even its agent. The L2 agent
> doesn't actually do anything with the bridge itself, it just needs a veth
> device it can put iptables rules on. That's in contrast to these new OVS
> bridges that we will be managing rules for, creating additional patch ports,
I wouldn't say linux bridges are totally outside of its domain because it relies
on them for security groups. Rather than relying on an arbitrary naming
convention between Neutron and Nova, we could've implemented monitoring for new
linux bridges to create veth pairs and firewall rules on. I'm glad we didn't,
because that logic is specific to that particular firewall driver, similar to
how this trunk bridge monitoring would be specific to only vlan-aware-vms. I
think the logic lives best within an L2 agent extension, outside of the core
of the OVS agent.
> >Why shouldn't we use the tools that are already available to us?
> Because we're trying to build a house and all we have are paint brushes. :)
To me it seems like we already have a house that just needs a little paint :)
More information about the OpenStack-dev