Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] NodeGroups vs network-templates and static routes
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Andrew Woodward xar...@gmail.com wrote: Regardless of computing all the routes, we need to compute same role, but multi-segement routes. In this case I see that nodegroups becomes redundant. It's only value is that it may be a simpler interface then templates but it imposes the old network topology which I could see people wanting to get away from. I do not agree with unnecessary node groups. Yes, move route calculation is a good idea and I think we should implement it. But removing node groups... When we will implement multi-rack feature we will need some abstraction for store rack-specific attributes. Node groups are seems appropriate for this role. /sv __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [fuel] NodeGroups vs network-templates and static routes
Ya, that makes sense now that you mention it. We will still need node groups to act as partitioning for the rack values On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 1:44 AM Sergey Vasilenko svasile...@mirantis.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Andrew Woodward xar...@gmail.com wrote: Regardless of computing all the routes, we need to compute same role, but multi-segement routes. In this case I see that nodegroups becomes redundant. It's only value is that it may be a simpler interface then templates but it imposes the old network topology which I could see people wanting to get away from. I do not agree with unnecessary node groups. Yes, move route calculation is a good idea and I think we should implement it. But removing node groups... When we will implement multi-rack feature we will need some abstraction for store rack-specific attributes. Node groups are seems appropriate for this role. /sv __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- -- Andrew Woodward Mirantis Fuel Community Ambassador Ceph Community __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [fuel] NodeGroups vs network-templates and static routes
In 6.0 we added nodegroups as part of the multiple-cluster-networks features. With these you can add additional sets of networks with so that the nodes can exist on different network segments. When these are used you will also need to set the gateway for each of your networks. When you do this, you get routes set up between the matching network names across the nodegroups. For example network.yaml that looks like (shortened) networks: - cidr: 172.16.0.0/24 gateway: 172.16.0.1 group_id: 2 id: 6 - cidr: 172.16.10.0/24 gateway: 172.16.10.1 group_id: 3 id: 9 Will result in mappings like this in a nodes yaml (in nodegroup 2) network_scheme: endpoints: br-ex: IP: - 172.16.0.4/24 routes: - net: 172.16.10.0/24 via: 172.16.0.1 With the introduction of templates we may no longer need nodegroups. They served two functions. 1) They allowed us to create additional networks. 2) They created additional routes between networks of the same name. Comparing with what is in templates, #1 is taken care of, but what about #2? I think that we need the routes configured anyway. Nodes with the same network role should have a route for it when it crosses network segments. This would have traditionally been separated by nodegroups. but it now can be coded with templates. In this case (such as the yaml above) we must have routes for the nodes to communicate on the correct interface. Since we need code for routes between segments of the same network role, it might behoove ourselves to compute (maybe not use when they are the local interface). This serves two functions, it allows us to visualize the routing topology instead of just relying on the default route. Secondly when we get to using a routing protocol it gives us the data necessary to validate the routing protocol with what we expected. Regardless of computing all the routes, we need to compute same role, but multi-segement routes. In this case I see that nodegroups becomes redundant. It's only value is that it may be a simpler interface then templates but it imposes the old network topology which I could see people wanting to get away from. -- -- Andrew Woodward Mirantis Fuel Community Ambassador Ceph Community __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
