Open Stack

Has anyone had a problem with Mirantis Fuel giving a 'nailgund not 
available' error when attempting to save any changes to a cloud 
environment?  I'm encountering this problem after a fresh install of 
Mirantis Fuel 9.0 and then immediately upgrading to 9.2 (didn't even 
login to the Fuel web interface prior to the upgrade).

I've verified that nailgund is running and the network configured in 
'fuelmenu' during the initial 9.0 install is legit with Internet 
connectivity (172.16.0.0/22 network, 172.16.3.250 is fuel server, 
172.16.0.1 is the Internet gateway and 172.16.1.1-172.16.2.254 is handed 
out via the fuel DHCP server).  I've also verified that no other DHCP 
servers exist on this network, no errors or warnings in the 'fuelmenu' 
portion of the installation.

I've installed this before using the same exact methods/options on some 
Dell hardware in a lab of mine however I'm having this problem on a 
production deployment using some older HP servers.  The only difference 
between the functional installation and this one is the IP ranges that 
were used and I set a root/admin password on the production setup (I 
left admin/root at default on the functional setup).  I have a suspicion 
that using the 172.16.0.0/22 network as the admin/PXE network for fuel 
deployments might be the culprit as I noticed that the nailgund config 
file defines '172.16.0.0/16' as 'PUBLIC' in the template section as 
shown below:

/etc/nailgun/settings.yaml

"
STATIC_DIR: "/usr/share/nailgun/static"
TEMPLATE_DIR: "/usr/share/nailgun/static"
NETWORK_POOLS:
   public:
     - "172.16.0.0/16"
   private10:
     - "10.0.0.0/8"
   private192:
     - "192.168.0.0/16"

NET_EXCLUDE:
   - "172.16.0.0/22"

ADMIN_NETWORK:
   cidr: "172.16.0.0/22"
   netmask: "255.255.252.0"
   mac: "e4:11:5b:e6:90:3a"
   size: "1024"
   first: "172.16.1.1"
   last: "172.16.2.254"
   gateway: "172.16.3.250"

VLANS_RANGE_START: "100"
VLANS_RANGE_END: "1000"
"

I tried using Mirantis Fuel 9.0 without patching and it doesn't exhibit 
this same problem although this time around I left the admin/root 
passwords at default and did not set them as I did with the previous 
installations when I upgraded directly to 9.2 so I'm not sure if that is 
factoring in here.

Any ideas what the issue may be?

Also, sorry if this is a repost, I sent this email many hours ago and 
didn't see it appear on the mailing list archives, not sure what the 
issue is or if I didn't wait long enough.

silox