I am looking at integrating Fuel@OPNFV/MCP with our OPNFV baremetal PODs (both 
x86_64 and aarch64).
Right now I am playing with MaaS and its network configuration.

The old Fuel@OPNFV was relying on the jump server's "pxebr" bridge interface, 
which is supposed to reach all baremetal nodes, for PXE-booting purposes.
If we want to reuse this interface as-is, we need to make sure "pxebr" will 
also have internet access, one way or another, on all PODs supporting 
Fuel@OPNFV deploys.

Afaik, each POD is configured differently, the customizations ranging from 
different IP/subnets to totally different layouts.
E.g. Armband used to have 2 network attached to its old Fuel Master node:
- 1 x PXE/admin - no external configuration, TFTP/DNS/DHCP was provided by Fuel 
Master node - hooked up to a port in our dumb version of "pxebr";
- 1 x public - external gateway, no external DHCP - hooked up to jump server's 
"public" bridge;
However, x86 PODs running Fuel were configured to use only:
- 1 x PXE/admin interface, hooked to "pxebr", which also had external internet 
access (NAT-ed?), but no external DHCP/DNS in order not to conflict with the 
ones provided by Fuel Master;

Going forward, I would like to align the new network requirements between our 
PODs and the rest of the OPNFV pool, so here are some questions:
- is PXE/admin interface (connected to "pxebr") supposed to always have 
internet access? If so, how? NAT on the jump server? Or external gateway? Can 
we assume this is going to happen for all PODs, or should we support different 
configurations as well?
- is LOM (the network used to access baremetal nodes IPMI interfaces) routed to 
PXE/admin or public, or is it a separate, independent network? This seems to 
vary from POD to POD.
- is LOM expected to have external DNS/DHCP, or is this up to the team 
responsible for POD config?

opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to