[Openstack-operators] DVR and public IP consumption

Robert Starmer robert at kumul.us
Fri Jan 29 09:21:19 UTC 2016

I don't think there's anything wrong with your suggestion, as I can't find
a path where the extra address is actually used (it doesn't get used in any
NAT mapping, so it is really vestigial). The question now is, will anyone
in the community be interested in extending the DVR code in this fashion
(interested in writing a spec?).

I personally am a bigger proponent of dropping the whole Floating IP
charade, and moving wholesale to v6 and routing right to the VM/container
endpoint.  But maybe that's just my own odd view.

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Fox, Kevin M <Kevin.Fox at pnnl.gov> wrote:

> Ah. so it was done just to make it simple to reuse lots of existing code
> to get DVR working quickly and thus a current requirement, but there is
> nothing stopping further enhancements to be made to eliminate it in the
> future?
> What about a step in between what's there now, and eliminating it
> completely. If the router code expects there to be an ip allocated for it
> on every compute node, could you share one external ip between all the
> compute node routers? Since the network will never actually use it, it
> probably doesn't matter if its conflicting but it would still allow the
> existing code to function the way it always has, greatly simplifying
> implementation?
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Robert Starmer [robert at kumul.us]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 27, 2016 8:34 PM
> *To:* Fox, Kevin M
> *Cc:* Carl Baldwin; OpenStack Operators; Tomas Vondra
> *Subject:* Re: [Openstack-operators] DVR and public IP consumption
> I think I've created a bit of confusion, because I forgot that DVR still
> does SNAT (generic non Floating IP tied NAT) on a central network node just
> like in the non-DVR model.  The extra address that is consumed is allocated
> to a FIP specific namespace when a DVR is made responsible for supporting a
> tenant's floating IP, and the question then is: Why do I need this _extra_
> external address from the floating IP pool for the FIP namespace, since
> it's the allocation of a tenant requested floating IP to a tenant VM that
> triggers the DVR to implement the FIP namespace function in the first
> place.
> In both the Paris and Vancouver DVR presentations "We add distributed FIP
> support at the expense of an _extra_ external address per device, but the
> FIP namespace is then shared across all tenants". Given that there is no
> "external" interface for the DVR interface for floating IPs until at least
> one tenant allocates one, a new namespace needs to be created to act as the
> termination for the tenant's floating IP.  A normal tenant router would
> have an address allocated already, because it has a port allocated onto the
> external network (this is the address that SNAT overloads for those
> non-floating associated machines that lets them communicate with the
> Internet at large), but in this case, no such interface exists until the
> namespace is created and attached to the external network, so when the
> floating IP port is created, an address is simply allocated from the
> External (e.g. floating) pool for the interface.  And _then_ the floating
> IP is allocated to the namespace as well. The fact that this extra address
> is used is a part of the normal port allocation process (and default
> port-security anti-spoofing processes) that exist already, and simplifies
> the process of moving tenant allocated floating addresses around (the port
> state for the floating namespace doesn't change, it keeps it's special mac
> and address regardless of what ever else goes on). So don't think of it as
> a Floating IP allocated to the DVR, it's just the DVR's local
> representative for it's port on the external network.  Tenant addresses are
> then "on top" of this setup.
> So, in-efficient, yes.  Part of DVR history, yes.  Confusing to us mere
> network mortals, yes.  But that's how I see it. And sorry for the SNAT
> reference, just adding my own additional layer of "this is how it should
> be"  on top.
> Robert
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Fox, Kevin M <Kevin.Fox at pnnl.gov> wrote:
>> But there already is a second external address, the fip address that's
>> nating. Is there a double nat? I'm a little confused.
>> Thanks,
>> Kevin
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Robert Starmer [robert at kumul.us]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 27, 2016 3:20 PM
>> *To:* Carl Baldwin
>> *Cc:* OpenStack Operators; Tomas Vondra
>> *Subject:* Re: [Openstack-operators] DVR and public IP consumption
>> You can't get rid of the "External" address as it's used to direct return
>> traffic to the right router node.  DVR as implemented is really just a
>> local NAT gateway per physical compute node.  The outside of your NAT needs
>> to be publicly unique, so it needs it's own address.  Some SDN solutions
>> can provide a truly distributed router model, because they globally know
>> the inside state of the NAT environment, and can forward packets back to
>> the internal source properly, regardless of which distributed forwarder
>> receives the incoming "external" packets.
>> If the number of external addresses consumed is an issue, you may
>> consider the dual gateway HA model instead of DVR.  This uses classic
>> multi-router models where one router takes on the task of forwading
>> packets, and the other device just acts as a backup.  You do still have a
>> software bottleneck at your router, unless you then also use one of the
>> plugins that supports hardware L3 (last I checked, Juniper, Arista, Cisco,
>> etc. all provide an L3 plugin that is HA capable), but you only burn 3
>> External addresses for the router (and 3 internal network addresses per
>> tenant side interface if that matters).
>> Hope that clarifies a bit,
>> Robert
>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:14 AM, Carl Baldwin <carl at ecbaldwin.net> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 2:45 AM, Tomas Vondra <vondra at czech-itc.cz>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Hi!
>>> > I have just deployed an OpenStack Kilo installation with DVR and
>>> expected
>>> > that it will consume one Public IP per network node as per
>>> >
>>> http://assafmuller.com/2015/04/15/distributed-virtual-routing-floating-ips/
>>> ,
>>> > but it still eats one per virtual Router.
>>> > What is the correct behavior?
>>> Regardless of DVR, a Neutron router burns one IP per virtual router
>>> which it uses to SNAT traffic from instances that do not have floating
>>> IPs.
>>> When you use DVR, an additional IP is consumed for each compute host
>>> running an L3 agent in DVR mode.  There has been some discussion about
>>> how this can be eliminated but no action has been taken to do this.
>>> > Otherwise, it works as a DVR should according to documentation. There
>>> are
>>> > router namespaces at both compute and network nodes, snat namespaces
>>> at the
>>> > network nodes and fip namespaces at the compute nodes. Every router
>>> has a
>>> > router_interface_distributed and a router_centralized_snat with
>>> private IPs,
>>> > however the router_gateway has a public IP, which I would like to getr
>>> id of
>>> > to increase density.
>>> I'm not sure if it is possible to avoid burning these IPs at this
>>> time.  Maybe someone else can chime in with more detail.
>>> Carl
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenStack-operators mailing list
>>> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20160129/27e205cc/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-operators mailing list