Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic][neutron] bonding?

[Moshe Levi]

Hi Jim,

Neutron is supporting resource tagging [1] which is support currently  network 
resource_type
With a simple change is neutron you can also allow resource tagging for port 
resource_type [2]

This will allow you to tags ports and indicate that they are in the same group
maybe that can work better the ironic port group concept.


[1] - 
https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/kilo/approved/tag-instances.html
[2] - 
https://github.com/openstack/neutron/blob/master/neutron/extensions/tag.py#L38-L41


From: Armando M. [mailto:arma...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 10:19 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic][neutron] bonding?



On 24 May 2016 at 04:51, Jim Rollenhagen 
<j...@jimrollenhagen.com<mailto:j...@jimrollenhagen.com>> wrote:
Hi,

There's rumors floating around about Neutron having a bonding model in
the near future. Are there any solid plans for that?

Who spreads these rumors :)?

To the best of my knowledge I have not seen any RFE proposed recently along 
these lines.


For context, as part of the multitenant networking work, ironic has a
portgroup concept proposed, where operators can configure bonding for
NICs in a baremetal machine. There are ML2 drivers that support this
model and will configure a bond.

Some folks have concerns about landing this code if Neutron is going to
support bonding as a first-class citizen. So before we delay any
further, I'd like to find out if there's any truth to this, and what the
timeline for that might look like.

Thanks!

// jim

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: 
openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__
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] [ironic][neutron] bonding?

[Jim Rollenhagen]

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 12:18:40PM -0700, Armando M. wrote:
> On 24 May 2016 at 04:51, Jim Rollenhagen  wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > There's rumors floating around about Neutron having a bonding model in
> > the near future. Are there any solid plans for that?
> >
> 
> Who spreads these rumors :)?
> 
> To the best of my knowledge I have not seen any RFE proposed recently along
> these lines.

Thanks Armando. Long live portgroups :)

// jim

> 
> 
> > For context, as part of the multitenant networking work, ironic has a
> > portgroup concept proposed, where operators can configure bonding for
> > NICs in a baremetal machine. There are ML2 drivers that support this
> > model and will configure a bond.
> >
> > Some folks have concerns about landing this code if Neutron is going to
> > support bonding as a first-class citizen. So before we delay any
> > further, I'd like to find out if there's any truth to this, and what the
> > timeline for that might look like.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > // jim
> >
> > __
> > 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 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 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] [ironic][neutron] bonding?

[Clint Byrum]

Excerpts from Jim Rollenhagen's message of 2016-05-24 07:51:21 -0400:
> Hi,
> 
> There's rumors floating around about Neutron having a bonding model in
> the near future. Are there any solid plans for that?
> 
> For context, as part of the multitenant networking work, ironic has a
> portgroup concept proposed, where operators can configure bonding for
> NICs in a baremetal machine. There are ML2 drivers that support this
> model and will configure a bond.
> 
> Some folks have concerns about landing this code if Neutron is going to
> support bonding as a first-class citizen. So before we delay any
> further, I'd like to find out if there's any truth to this, and what the
> timeline for that might look like.
> 

FYI we've been playing with bonding and Ironic using Bifrost and glean.
There are some patches up for the format we've used: 

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/318940/

Just a thought, it would be good if we can get that metadata to be
the same for Neutron, or at least get an early idea of the spec so we
can make sure glean supports it ASAP.

__
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] [ironic][neutron] bonding?

[Sean M. Collins]

The only thing I am remotely aware of that is relevant is:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1558626

But that's really just in one agent.
-- 
Sean M. Collins

__
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] [ironic][neutron] bonding?

[Armando M.]

On 24 May 2016 at 04:51, Jim Rollenhagen  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> There's rumors floating around about Neutron having a bonding model in
> the near future. Are there any solid plans for that?
>

Who spreads these rumors :)?

To the best of my knowledge I have not seen any RFE proposed recently along
these lines.


> For context, as part of the multitenant networking work, ironic has a
> portgroup concept proposed, where operators can configure bonding for
> NICs in a baremetal machine. There are ML2 drivers that support this
> model and will configure a bond.
>
> Some folks have concerns about landing this code if Neutron is going to
> support bonding as a first-class citizen. So before we delay any
> further, I'd like to find out if there's any truth to this, and what the
> timeline for that might look like.
>
> Thanks!
>
> // jim
>
> __
> 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 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] [ironic][neutron] bonding?

[Jim Rollenhagen]

Hi,

There's rumors floating around about Neutron having a bonding model in
the near future. Are there any solid plans for that?

For context, as part of the multitenant networking work, ironic has a
portgroup concept proposed, where operators can configure bonding for
NICs in a baremetal machine. There are ML2 drivers that support this
model and will configure a bond.

Some folks have concerns about landing this code if Neutron is going to
support bonding as a first-class citizen. So before we delay any
further, I'd like to find out if there's any truth to this, and what the
timeline for that might look like.

Thanks!

// jim

__
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