> On March 27, 2014, 5:02 p.m., Alena Prokharchyk wrote:
> > Suresh, your fix contradicts with whatever you said in your previous
> > comment. You said that your contrail element will play the role of the
> > internal load Balancer. In that case, you should have added the Service LB
> > with capability LbSchemas="internal" to your contrail provider
> > implementation.
> >
> > The current fix though implies that the separate Internal LB vm will be
> > started? Please elaborate.
>
> Suresh Balineni wrote:
> I wanted to re-use the existing Internal LB element as is except required
> Nic resources should be implemented by Contrail VRouter.
>
>
>
> Alena Prokharchyk wrote:
> Suresh, InternalLbElement is being managed by InternalLBElementManager.
> The nics are created there. If you want the rules to be programmed on your
> VPC contrail element, use your VPC contrail element as a provider for
> internal lb. With the current code in the patch, the internal lb vm will be
> created as a separate vm from your contrail vm, with the nics configured the
> standard way.
>
> Suresh Balineni wrote:
> Hi Alena,
>
> 1. Contrail does not launch any VM for VPC. Routing support is provided
> by separate kernel module called contrail-vrouter. It does not support
> internal lb. I want to leverage CS Virtual-Router load balancing capabilities
> for supporting internal lb in contrail vpc implementation. I just have to
> create Nics in contrail vrouter for internal lb vm.
>
> 2. Since Contrail Network Offering is configured for Internal LB VM,
> "contrail guru" gets invoked when Internal LB VM is getting launched.
>
> for (Service svc : services) {
> if (svc == Service.Lb) {
> if(offeringName.equals(vpcRouterOfferingName)) {
> Set<Provider> lbProviderSet = new HashSet<Provider>();
> lbProviderSet.add(Provider.InternalLbVm);
> serviceProviderMap.put(svc, lbProviderSet);
> }
> continue;
> }
> serviceProviderMap.put(svc, providerSet);
> }
> ConfigurationManager configMgr =
> (ConfigurationManager)_configService;
> NetworkOfferingVO voffer =
> configMgr.createNetworkOffering(offeringName,
> offeringDisplayText, TrafficType.Guest, null, false,
> Availability.Optional, null, serviceProviderMap, true,
> Network.GuestType.Isolated, false, null, false,
> null, false, true, null, true, null, false);
>
> 3. I verified this implementation, It works perfectly fine.
>
> Alena Prokharchyk wrote:
> Suresh, ok, please confirm that the following is correct.
>
> When internalLb is used in contrail network, internalLB VM will be
> launched in CS to handle the service. So you do expect CS to invoke internal
> lb vm, and this vm will have nics configured by your guru.
>
>
> If the above is correct, I'm going to ship the fix.
>
Yes, That's correct.
- Suresh
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18552/#review38754
-----------------------------------------------------------
On March 27, 2014, 12:42 a.m., Suresh Balineni wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/18552/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated March 27, 2014, 12:42 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for cloudstack and Alena Prokharchyk.
>
>
> Repository: cloudstack-git
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> Internal LB support for Juniper contrail VPC implementation.
>
> - This implementation just extends the existing implementation of internal lb.
> - New element uses juniper contrail network offering so that nics are
> impelemented by contrail element.
> - LB VM deployment functionality is reused (new element is extended from
> existing Internal LB element implementation).
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> plugins/network-elements/juniper-contrail/pom.xml 8c6877d
>
> plugins/network-elements/juniper-contrail/src/org/apache/cloudstack/network/contrail/management/ContrailManagerImpl.java
> 01be7db
> server/src/com/cloud/network/vpc/VpcManagerImpl.java fe49981
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18552/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Tested LB VM deployment. Traffic tests are done.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Suresh Balineni
>
>
