Hi Nischal, I can not ping the TSN but I can confirm that I see ARP for it.
I don't see any reason why the TSN should have an IP address assigned if we're not using DNS or DHCP functionality. I understand that this isn't much of an issue for those who are configuring private /24's on VNs but even wasting 1 IP address is unacceptable when configuring a VN with a /29 or /28 of public address space. At the end of the day, we really just need Contrail to build us L2 networks between TOR ports and configure MX's to act as a gateway. We don't expect or even want the TSN to do anything more then flood BUM traffic. I think 2.21 has brought us really close to meeting our initial use cases so I want to thank everyone for their work on this. -Dan On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Nischal Sheth <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Dan, > > Can you arp/ping the .2 address to check if the TSN responds to it? > > -Nischal > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Oct 17, 2015, at 10:45 AM, Dan Houtz <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Nischal, > > Thank you for the info. Is there anyway to override the ".2 for DNS" > behavior or should I consider opening a feature request? When creating an > external network with public IP's losing even 1 of these to an unused > service is a bit tough to swallow considering the state of IP availability > on the Internet. We're not currently planning to use any of the DNS or DHCP > functionality within Contrail; in fact I would like to operate without any > concept of IPAM if at all possible :) > > -Dan > > > > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Nischal Sheth <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> Hi Dan, >> >> The .2 address is set aside for use as DNS server at the TSN, >> irrespective of whether DNS is enabled or not. >> >> I think you should be able to control assignment of the MX irb addresses >> by creating an allocation pool. The pool could have the first 4 addresses >> in your case. The rest of the addresses in the subnet can be owned by your >> DHCP server. >> >> -Nischal >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Oct 17, 2015, at 9:25 AM, Dan Houtz <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi fellow Contrailers, >> >> The 2.21 release adds functionality to configure redundant MX gateways >> using the virtual-gateway-address knob. Is anyone able to explain the logic >> of the per router IP assignments? Are these able to be set in a >> deterministic way or must we rely on Contrail to choose them at random from >> the subnet? >> >> For example, I created a network using 10.10.10.0/24 with .1 as the >> gateway. Contrail configured mx1 with and address of .3 and mx2 with an >> address of .4. >> >> I don't quite understand why .2 is skipped. At least in our environment >> where we'll probably only have 2 MX's for a VN, we would prefer that the >> first 3 usable IP addresses in the subnet ALWAYS be used for each router >> and the virtual gateway address. >> >> I'm also concerned about what happens if you remove a physical router >> temporarily. In my case above, I removed mx1 and then re-added it to the >> VN. When doing this, mx1 was then assigned a new IP address - this time .7. >> So if seems like, over, time it will cycle through the entire IP block. >> What happens if it chooses an IP that a host is already using? >> >> Again, I would much prefer if I could control this assignment so I can >> make sure it gets the same IP address. Removing/Adding a physical router to >> a VN might not be super common but I could see it happening for testing, >> troubleshooting, and maintenance . >> >> Thanks! >> Dan >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org
