Hi Mike,

Few clarifications inline [Vivek]

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Kolesnik [mailto:mkole...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 10:58 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][L2Pop][HA Routers] Request for comments 
for a possible solution

Hi Mathieu,

Thanks for the quick reply, some comments inline..


----- Original Message -----
> Hi mike,
> thanks for working on this bug :
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Gary Kotton <gkot...@vmware.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 12/18/14, 2:06 PM, "Mike Kolesnik" <mkole...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Hi Neutron community members.
> >>
> >>I wanted to query the community about a proposal of how to fix HA
> >>routers not working with L2Population (bug 1365476[1]).
> >>This bug is important to fix especially if we want to have HA
> >>routers and DVR routers working together.
> >>
> >>[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1365476
> >>
> >>What's happening now?
> >>* HA routers use distributed ports, i.e. the port with the same IP &
> >>MAC
> >>  details is applied on all nodes where an L3 agent is hosting this
> >>router.
> >>* Currently, the port details have a binding pointing to an
> >>arbitrary node
> >>  and this is not updated.
> >>* L2pop takes this "potentially stale" information and uses it to create:
> >>  1. A tunnel to the node.
> >>  2. An FDB entry that directs traffic for that port to that node.
> >>  3. If ARP responder is on, ARP requests will not traverse the network.
> >>* Problem is, the master router wouldn't necessarily be running on
> >>the
> >>  reported agent.
> >>  This means that traffic would not reach the master node but some
> >>arbitrary
> >>  node where the router master might be running, but might be in
> >>another
> >>  state (standby, fail).
> >>
> >>What is proposed?
> >>Basically the idea is not to do L2Pop for HA router ports that
> >>reside on the tenant network.
> >>Instead, we would create a tunnel to each node hosting the HA router
> >>so that the normal learning switch functionality would take care of
> >>switching the traffic to the master router.
> >
> > In Neutron we just ensure that the MAC address is unique per network.
> > Could a duplicate MAC address cause problems here?
> gary, AFAIU, from a Neutron POV, there is only one port, which is the
> router Port, which is plugged twice. One time per port.
> I think that the capacity to bind a port to several host is also a
> prerequisite for a clean solution here. This will be provided by
> patches to this bug :
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1367391
> >>This way no matter where the master router is currently running, the
> >>data plane would know how to forward traffic to it.
> >>This solution requires changes on the controller only.
> >>
> >>What's to gain?
> >>* Data plane only solution, independent of the control plane.
> >>* Lowest failover time (same as HA routers today).
> >>* High backport potential:
> >>  * No APIs changed/added.
> >>  * No configuration changes.
> >>  * No DB changes.
> >>  * Changes localized to a single file and limited in scope.
> >>
> >>What's the alternative?
> >>An alternative solution would be to have the controller update the
> >>port binding on the single port so that the plain old L2Pop happens
> >>and notifies about the location of the master router.
> >>This basically negates all the benefits of the proposed solution,
> >>but is wider.
> >>This solution depends on the report-ha-router-master spec which is
> >>currently in the implementation phase.
> >>
> >>It's important to note that these two solutions don't collide and
> >>could be done independently. The one I'm proposing just makes more
> >>sense from an HA viewpoint because of it's benefits which fit the HA
> >>methodology of being fast & having as little outside dependency as
> >>possible.
> >>It could be done as an initial solution which solves the bug for
> >>mechanism drivers that support normal learning switch (OVS), and
> >>later kept as an optimization to the more general, controller based,
> >>solution which will solve the issue for any mechanism driver working
> >>with L2Pop (Linux Bridge, possibly others).
> >>
> >>Would love to hear your thoughts on the subject.
> You will have to clearly update the doc to mention that deployment
> with Linuxbridge+l2pop are not compatible with HA.

Yes this should be added and this is already the situation right now.
However if anyone would like to work on a LB fix (the general one or some 
specific one) I would gladly help with reviewing it.

> Moreover, this solution is downgrading the l2pop solution, by
> disabling the ARP-responder when VMs want to talk to a HA router.
> This means that ARP requests will be duplicated to every overlay
> tunnel to feed the OVS Mac learning table.
> This is something that we were trying to avoid with l2pop. But may be
> this is acceptable.

Yes basically you're correct, however this would be only limited to those 
tunnels that connect to the nodes where the HA router is hosted, so we would 
still limit the amount of traffic that is sent across the underlay.

Also bear in mind that ARP is actually good (at least in OVS case) since it 
helps the VM locate on which tunnel the master is, so once it receives the ARP 
response it records a flow that directs the traffic to the correct tunnel, so 
we just get hit by the one ARP broadcast but it's sort of a necessary evil in 
order to locate the master..

[Vivek]  When the failover happens, the VMs would be actually sending traffic 
to the old master node.
They won't be getting any response back.

At this time does the VMs redo an ARP request for the HA Router?
And that again sets up the learned rules correctly again in br-tun,  so that 
the routed traffic
from VM continues on to the new master..

> I know that ofagent is also using l2pop, I would like to know if
> ofagent deployment will be compatible with the workaround that you are
> proposing.

I would like to know that too, hopefully someone from OFagent can shed some 

> My concern is that, with DVR, there are at least two major features
> that are not compatible with Linuxbridge.
> Linuxbridge is not running in the gate. I don't know if anybody is
> running a 3rd party testing with Linuxbridge deployments. If anybody
> does, it would be great to have it voting on gerrit!
> But I really wonder what is the future of linuxbridge compatibility?
> should we keep on improving OVS solution without taking into account
> the linuxbridge implementation?

I don't know actually, but my capability is to fix it for OVS the best way 
As I said the situation for LB won't become worse than it already is, legacy 
routers would till function as always.. This fix also will not block fixing LB 
in any other way since it can be easily adjusted (if
necessary) to work only for supporting mechanisms (OVS AFAIK).

Also if anyone is willing to pick up the glove and implement the general 
controller based fix, or something more focused on LB I will happily help 
review what I can.

[Vivek]  Also by this proposal, will the HA Router be able to co-operate with 
DVR which actually mandates L2-Pop?



> Regards,
> Mathieu
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>Mike
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>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

OpenStack-dev mailing list

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to