Open Stack

Some thoughts inline.

Salvatore

On 11 March 2016 at 23:15, Carl Baldwin <carl at ecbaldwin.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have started to get into coding [1] for the Neutron routed networks
> specification [2].
>
> This spec proposes a new association between network segments and
> subnets.  This affects how IPAM needs to work because until we know
> where the port is going to land, we cannot allocate an IP address for
> it.  Also, IPAM will need to somehow be aware of segments.  We have
> proposed a host / segment mapping which could be transformed to a host
> / subnet mapping for IPAM purposes.
>
> I wanted to get the opinion of folks like Salvatore, John Belamaric,
> and you (if you interested) on this.  How will this affect the
> interface to pluggable IPAM and how can pluggable implementations can
> accommodate this change.  Obviously, we wouldn't require
> implementations to support it but routed networks wouldn't be very
> useful without it.  So, those implementations would not be compatible
> when routed networks are deployed.
>

I think it is ok to augment the IPAM interface. As any API, it needs to
evolve.
I don't think we have a story for its versioning; therefore I reckon that
the simplest way to achieve this would be adding a new method for
segment-aware IPAM, that only drivers supporting routing networks will be
required to implement.



>
> Another related topic was brought up in the recent Neutron mid-cycle.
> We talked about adding a service type attribute to to subnets.  The
> reason for this change is to allow operators to create special subnets
> on a network to be used only by certain kinds of ports.  For example,
> DVR fip namespace gateway ports burn a public IP for no good reason.
> This new feature would allow operators to create a special subnet in
> the network with private addressing only to be used by these ports.
>
> Another example would give operators the ability to use private
> subnets for router external gateway ports if shared SNAT is not needed
> or doesn't need to use public IPs.
>
> These are two ways in which subnets are taking on extra
> characteristics which distinguish them from other subnets on the same
> network.  That is why I lumped them together in to one thread.
>

I wonder if we could satisfy this requirement with tags - as it seems these
subnets are anyway operator-owned you should probably not worry about
regular tenants fiddling with them, and therefore the "helper" subnet
needed for the fip namespace could just be tagged to the purpose.


>
> Carl
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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/20160312/44454824/attachment.html>