Re: [openstack-dev] [qa] Should it be allowed to attach 2 interfaces from the same subnet to a VM?
Excerpts from Danny Choi (dannchoi)'s message of 2014-12-02 08:34:07 -0800: > Hi Andrea, > > Though both interfaces come up, only one will response to the ping from the > neutron router. > When I disable it, then the second one will response to ping. > So it looks like only one interface is useful at a time. > I believe both interfaces can be used independently by setting arp_announce to 1 or 2. As in: sysctl -w net.ipv4.conf.all.arp_announce=2 Might want to try both settings. The documentation is here: https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.txt ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [qa] Should it be allowed to attach 2 interfaces from the same subnet to a VM?
- Original Message - > From: "Danny Choi (dannchoi)" > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > Hi Andrea, > > Though both interfaces come up, only one will response to the ping from the > neutron router. > When I disable it, then the second one will response to ping. > So it looks like only one interface is useful at a time. > > My question is is there any useful case for this, I.e. Why would you do this? > > Thanks, > Danny The rationale is given in the spec (http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/juno/implemented/nfv-multiple-if-1-net.html) as: """ NFV functions occasionally require multiple interfaces to be attached to a single network from the same VM, for reasons described below in the ‘use cases’ section. When this is required, the VNF generally cannot be used under Openstack. VNFs are often large, complex pieces of code, and may be supplied by third parties. For various reasons, it is not uncommon that it is necessary to feed traffic out of an interface and into another interface (when the VNF implements multiple functions and the functions cannot be chained internally) or to feed traffic from e.g. the internet into multiple interfaces to run them through separate processing functions internally. The limitation can be seen as one of the VNF. Clearly, the VNF could be changed to put multiple addresses or functions on a single port (to fix the incoming traffic issue) or to connect functions internally (to fix the passthrough problem. The problem with this solution is that the timescale for getting such a fix is often prohibitive. VNFs are large, complex pieces of code, and often the supplier of the VNF is not the same organisation as that trying to use the VNF within Openstack, necessitating a feature change request which may well not be possible within reasonable timescales. We propose changing the code within Nova to remove this limitation. """ -Steve ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [qa] Should it be allowed to attach 2 interfaces from the same subnet to a VM?
Hi Andrea, Though both interfaces come up, only one will response to the ping from the neutron router. When I disable it, then the second one will response to ping. So it looks like only one interface is useful at a time. My question is is there any useful case for this, I.e. Why would you do this? Thanks, Danny Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 10:44:57 + From: Andrea Frittoli mailto:andrea.fritt...@gmail.com>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [qa] Should it be allowed to attach 2 interfaces from the same subnet to a VM? Message-ID: mailto:cab7wygv4+ji-tj5jkvg98kw0hxot8zlnuk+nzvjywfdijio...@mail.gmail.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hello Danny, I think so. Any special concern with a VM using more than one port on a subnet? andrea On 2 December 2014 at 02:04, Danny Choi (dannchoi) mailto:dannc...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi, When I attach 2 interfaces from the same subnet to a VM, there is no error returned and both interfaces come up. lab@tme211:/opt/stack/logs$ nova interface-attach --net-id e38dba4a-74ed-4312-ba21-2a04b5c5a5b5 cirros-1 lab@tme211:/opt/stack/logs$ nova list +--+--+++-+---+ | ID | Name | Status | Task State | Power State | Networks | +--+--+++-+---+ | 9d88d0b5-2453-4657-8058-987980ec7744 | cirros-1 | ACTIVE | - | Running | private=10.0.0.10 | +--+--+++-+---+ lab@tme211:/opt/stack/logs$ nova interface-attach --net-id e38dba4a-74ed-4312-ba21-2a04b5c5a5b5 cirros-1 lab@tme211:/opt/stack/logs$ nova list +--+--+++-+--+ | ID | Name | Status | Task State | Power State | Networks | +--+--+++-+--+ | 9d88d0b5-2453-4657-8058-987980ec7744 | cirros-1 | ACTIVE | - | Running | private=10.0.0.10, 10.0.0.11 | +--+--+++-+--+ $ ifconfig eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr FA:16:3E:92:2D:2B inet addr:10.0.0.10 Bcast:10.0.0.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::f816:3eff:fe92:2d2b/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:514 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:307 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:48342 (47.2 KiB) TX bytes:41750 (40.7 KiB) eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr FA:16:3E:EF:55:BC inet addr:10.0.0.11 Bcast:10.0.0.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::f816:3eff:feef:55bc/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:49 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:8 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:3556 (3.4 KiB) TX bytes:1120 (1.0 KiB) Should this operation be allowed? Thanks, Danny ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto: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
Re: [openstack-dev] [qa] Should it be allowed to attach 2 interfaces from the same subnet to a VM?
- Original Message - > From: "Danny Choi (dannchoi)" > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > Hi, > > When I attach 2 interfaces from the same subnet to a VM, there is no error > returned and > both interfaces come up. > > lab@tme211:/opt/stack/logs$ nova interface-attach --net-id > e38dba4a-74ed-4312-ba21-2a04b5c5a5b5 cirros-1 > > lab@tme211:/opt/stack/logs$ nova list > > +--+--+++-+---+ > > | ID | Name | Status | Task State | > | Power State | Networks | > > +--+--+++-+---+ > > | 9d88d0b5-2453-4657-8058-987980ec7744 | cirros-1 | ACTIVE | - | > | Running | private=10.0.0.10 | > > +--+--+++-+---+ > > lab@tme211:/opt/stack/logs$ nova interface-attach --net-id > e38dba4a-74ed-4312-ba21-2a04b5c5a5b5 cirros-1 > > lab@tme211:/opt/stack/logs$ nova list > > +--+--+++-+--+ > > | ID | Name | Status | Task State | > | Power State | Networks | > > +--+--+++-+--+ > > | 9d88d0b5-2453-4657-8058-987980ec7744 | cirros-1 | ACTIVE | - | > | Running | private=10.0.0.10, 10.0.0.11 | > > +--+--+++-+--+ > > > $ ifconfig > > eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr FA:16:3E:92:2D:2B > > inet addr:10.0.0.10 Bcast:10.0.0.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 > > inet6 addr: fe80::f816:3eff:fe92:2d2b/64 Scope:Link > > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 > > RX packets:514 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 > > TX packets:307 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 > > collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 > > RX bytes:48342 (47.2 KiB) TX bytes:41750 (40.7 KiB) > > > eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr FA:16:3E:EF:55:BC > > inet addr:10.0.0.11 Bcast:10.0.0.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 > > inet6 addr: fe80::f816:3eff:feef:55bc/64 Scope:Link > > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 > > RX packets:49 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 > > TX packets:8 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 > > collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 > > RX bytes:3556 (3.4 KiB) TX bytes:1120 (1.0 KiB) > > > > Should this operation be allowed? Support for this was explicitly added in Juno: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/multiple-if-1-net Do you have a concrete reason in mind as to why this should *not* be allowed? Thanks, Steve ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [qa] Should it be allowed to attach 2 interfaces from the same subnet to a VM?
Hello Danny, I think so. Any special concern with a VM using more than one port on a subnet? andrea On 2 December 2014 at 02:04, Danny Choi (dannchoi) wrote: > Hi, > > When I attach 2 interfaces from the same subnet to a VM, there is no error > returned and > both interfaces come up. > > lab@tme211:/opt/stack/logs$ nova interface-attach --net-id > e38dba4a-74ed-4312-ba21-2a04b5c5a5b5 cirros-1 > > lab@tme211:/opt/stack/logs$ nova list > > +--+--+++-+---+ > > | ID | Name | Status | Task State | > Power State | Networks | > > +--+--+++-+---+ > > | 9d88d0b5-2453-4657-8058-987980ec7744 | cirros-1 | ACTIVE | - | > Running | private=10.0.0.10 | > > +--+--+++-+---+ > > lab@tme211:/opt/stack/logs$ nova interface-attach --net-id > e38dba4a-74ed-4312-ba21-2a04b5c5a5b5 cirros-1 > > lab@tme211:/opt/stack/logs$ nova list > > +--+--+++-+--+ > > | ID | Name | Status | Task State | > Power State | Networks | > > +--+--+++-+--+ > > | 9d88d0b5-2453-4657-8058-987980ec7744 | cirros-1 | ACTIVE | - | > Running | private=10.0.0.10, 10.0.0.11 | > > +--+--+++-+--+ > > > $ ifconfig > > eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr FA:16:3E:92:2D:2B > > inet addr:10.0.0.10 Bcast:10.0.0.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 > > inet6 addr: fe80::f816:3eff:fe92:2d2b/64 Scope:Link > > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 > > RX packets:514 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 > > TX packets:307 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 > > collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 > > RX bytes:48342 (47.2 KiB) TX bytes:41750 (40.7 KiB) > > > eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr FA:16:3E:EF:55:BC > > inet addr:10.0.0.11 Bcast:10.0.0.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 > > inet6 addr: fe80::f816:3eff:feef:55bc/64 Scope:Link > > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 > > RX packets:49 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 > > TX packets:8 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 > > collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 > > RX bytes:3556 (3.4 KiB) TX bytes:1120 (1.0 KiB) > > > > Should this operation be allowed? > > > Thanks, > > Danny > > > ___ > 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
