here is the comment from juju team John Meinel: There is nothing to say that the PXE address is better than the other address for any given *user's* deployment. If a charm isn't updated to support network-get, even if we did make private-address stable, there would be no way to put the application on the second interface when you really wanted it. And if a charm is updated to support network-get, then the stability of private-address is not as important. FWIW, I believe we actually default private-address to the first address that MAAS returns. I haven't found any particular ordering to their value, as while it seems to be stable per node, it is not stable between nodes. (If I configure 2 nodes with similar network devices, named the same, in similar address ranges, one Node has a 172.* address first, and the second node has a 10.* address first, etc.)
I'm not against making private-address more stable, but I do feel like it is completely papering over the real issue, which is being able to allow a user to specify where they want the application deployed by making the charm ask Juju where it has been configured to run. John -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1657305 Title: percona cluster getting wrong private ip To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/opnfv/+bug/1657305/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
