kazuhiro MIYASHITA,

As designate progresses with server pools, we aim to have support for a
'private' dns server, that could run within a neutron network - is that
the level of integration you were referring to?

That is, for the time being, a long term goal, and not covered by Carl's
Kilo blueprint.

We talked with both people from both Neutron and Nova in Atlanta, and
worked out the first steps for designate / neutron integration (auto
provisioning of records)

For that level of integration, we are assuming that a neutron router
will be involved in DNS queries within a network.

Long term I would prefer to see a 'private pool' connecting directly to
the Network2 (like any other service VM (LBaaS etc)) and have dnsmasq
pass on only records hosted by that 'private pool' to designate.

This is all yet to be fleshed out, so I am open to suggestions. It
requires that we complete server pools, and that work is only just
starting (it was the main focus of our mid-cycle 2 weeks ago).

Graham

On Mon, 2014-08-11 at 11:02 -0600, Carl Baldwin wrote:
> kazuhiro MIYASHITA,
> 
> I have done a lot of thinking about this.  I have a blueprint on hold
> until Kilo for Neutron/Designate integration [1].
> 
> However, my blueprint doesn't quite address what you are going after
> here.  An assumption that I have made is that Designate is an external
> or internet facing service so a Neutron router needs to be in the
> datapath to carry requests from dnsmasq to an external network.  The
> advantage of this is that it is how Neutron works today so there is no
> new development needed.
> 
> Could you elaborate on the advantages of connecting dnsmasq directly
> to the external network where Designate will be available?
> 
> Carl
> 
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/88624/
> 
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Miyashita, Kazuhiro
> <miy...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I want to ask about neutron and designate integration.
> > I think dnsmasq fowards DNS request from instance to designate is better.
> >
> >                            +------------------------+
> >                            |DNS server(designate)   |
> >                            +------------------------+
> >                                 |
> > -----------------+--------------+------ Network1
> >                  |
> >               +--------+
> >               |dnsmasq |
> >               +--------+
> >                 |
> > -+--------------+---------------------- Network2
> >  |
> > +---------+
> > |instance |
> > +---------+
> >
> > Because it's simpler than virtual router connects Network1 and Network2.
> > If router connects network, instance should know where DNS server is. it is 
> > complicated.
> > dnsmasq returns its ip address as dns server in DHCP replay by ordinary, so,
> > I think good dnsmasq becomes like a gateway to designate.
> >
> > But, I can't connect dnsmasq to Network1. because of today's neutron design.
> >
> > Question:
> >   Does designate design team have a plan such as above integration?
> >   or other integration design?
> >
> > *1: Network1 and Network2 are deployed by neutron.
> > *2: neutron deploys dnsmasq as a dhcp server.
> >     dnsmasq can forward DNS request.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > kazuhiro MIYASHITA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to