Open Stack

Hi Neil,

Well that explains...
My networking setup does not conform to the commit message in such a way
that there are multiple subnets on the network, however the instance does
not have an IP address in all of them but only in one.
I guess the only option for now is to patch this code, as a workaround.The
reason for having multiple subnets on the same L2 segment is a migration
scenario. So I guess I'll just patch this as the situation will disappear
in the near future as normally subnets are separated by L2 domains (vlans)
in our setup.

Thanks!
Remco

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Neil Jerram <Neil.Jerram at metaswitch.com>
wrote:

> On 22/04/16 12:03, Remco wrote:
> > Hi Neil,
> >
> > Thanks.
> > The ip route output is as following, i guess the 0.0.0.0 gateway is only
> > listed by cloud-init:
> >
> > debian at instance:/$ ip route
> > default via 192.168.10.1 dev eth0
> > 192.168.10.0/24 <http://192.168.10.0/24> dev eth0  scope link
> > 169.254.169.254 via 192.168.10.1 dev eth0
> > 192.168.11.0/24 <http://192.168.11.0/24> dev eth0  scope link
> > 192.168.12.0/24 <http://192.168.12.0/24> dev eth0  proto kernel  scope
> > link  src 192.168.10.2
> >
> > (ip addresses are altered for security reasons).
>
> Thanks for these clarifications.
>
> > I'm not sure what creates these routes. I have two suspects: cloud-init
> > and DHCP. As the same issue is observed on instances without cloud-init
> > this rules out cloud-init.
> > We see the same issue on both Windows and Linux instances.
>
> OK, I think you're seeing the effect of this DHCP agent code, from
> neutron/agent/linux/dhcp.py:
>
>                  host_routes.extend(["%s,0.0.0.0" % (s.cidr) for s in
>                                      self.network.subnets
>                                      if (s.ip_version == 4 and
>                                          s.cidr != subnet.cidr)])
>
> AFAICS there is no obvious knob for suppressing this logic.
>
> The code was added in commit 6dce817c7c2, and the commit message says:
>
> =============8<=================
> Provide routes for neighbor IPv4 subnets
>
> Network may contain several Subnets.  In this case all these subnets are
> accessible via same link and two VMs with addresses from different
> Subnets may talk to each other directly, bypassing default router.  For
> this to work, "neighbour Subnets" should have entry in VM's routing
> tables.  RFC3442 describes this situation:
>
>     In some cases more than one IP subnet may be configured on a link.
>     In such cases, a host whose IP address is in one IP subnet in the
>     link could communicate directly with a host whose IP address is in a
>     different IP subnet on the same link. In cases where a client is
>     being assigned an IP address on an IP subnet on such a link, for each
>     IP subnet in the link other than the IP subnet on which the client
>     has been assigned the DHCP server MAY be configured to specify a
>     router IP address of 0.0.0.0.
>
> When network contains more that one IPv4 subnets, report these subnets
> in 'classless-static-routes' DHCP option.
>
> DocImpact
>
> Change-Id: Ifcf1d99e0f0136bf52b8d13675b7ccfd48005fab
> Closes-Bug: #1372885
> =============8<=================
>
> So I guess the next question is: in what way does your networking setup
> not conform to the assumptions in that commit message?
>
> Regards,
>         Neil
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20160422/a2e79a6c/attachment.html>