Thanks, Jose On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:49:17PM +0200, Dimitris Aragiorgis wrote: > * Jose A. Lopes <[email protected]> [2014-01-23 16:44:25 +0100]: > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:30:23PM +0200, Dimitris Aragiorgis wrote: > > > * Jose A. Lopes <[email protected]> [2014-01-23 10:21:03 +0100]: > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 04:48:04PM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Comment #5 on issue 679 by [email protected]: Common issues > > > > > documentation: gnt-network > > > > > http://code.google.com/p/ganeti/issues/detail?id=679 > > > > > > > > > > The routing table is irrelevant to gnt-network. Ganeti uses > > > > > nicparams inside the NIC object that include mode and link. In case > > > > > mode is routed, link logically points to > > > > > a routing table (same as if mode is bridged, link is a linux bridge). > > > > > > > > > > Any routing table (just like bridges) must pre-exist. In case mode > > > > > is routed Ganeti only checks if the NIC has an IP. > > > > > > > > Sorry, I am a bit confused here. From what I understand, the routing > > > > table is irrelevant, the link argument points to it, it must > > > > pre-exist, but it's never checked by Ganeti. > > > > > > > > Is this correct? > > > > > > > > > > Yes. The link (either routing table or bridge) passed to `gnt-network > > > connect` is inherited by NIC objects that reside in the network. I said > > > irrelevant because Ganeti *currently* does not check for routing table > > > existence neither in gnt-network context (during add/connect) nor in > > > gnt-instance context (--net 0:ip=1.2.3.4,mode=routed,link=rt1, > > > --net 0:ip=pool,network=net1) > > > > > > > What I did was to create a 'gnt-network' with routed mode. I never > > > > created the routing table and ganeti did not create one for me, at > > > > least AFAIK. Does this sound right to you? > > > > > > > > > > Yes, if by "right" you mean what is currently supported. Since Ganeti > > > provides all the necessary info to hooks and scripts, I think Ganeti > > > should not do any node configuration (create routing tables/bridges, > > > etc). And IMHO the existing CheckInstanceBridgesExist() is something > > > that should be removed since any bridge can be created on demand by > > > kvm-ifup script and this check adds one more RPC during instance related > > > operations.. > > > > I agree. > > > > Do you think it would me possible (or makes sense) to create a network > > in routed mode without specifying a routing table at all? > > No, I don't think this is the right approach. Ganeti, even before > gnt-network, needed a value for the link option (see also Constantinos' > comment on the issue). > > > Or the > > routing table is passed to gnt-network in order to get to the NIC and > > afterwards be passed to a hook script as an environment variable? > > > > Exactly! > > If mode is routed, link is reasonable to be a routing table > (default, or some other). Of course it can be something else that could > be useful to external scripts, which are responsible to handle the link > option. > > A NIC object should *always* have nicparams. If not > explicitly defined, they get filled with the cluster's defaults. > > Having this in mind, nodegroup's netparams (both mode and link) will > eventually be the NIC's nicparams as soon as it resides inside this > network. > > Since nicparams are currently auto-filled, not passing a link to > netparams would mean that NICs inside the same network could end up > having different links after modifying cluster's default. > > I'll be sending the documentation requested by Guido and Michele with > regard to gnt-network one of the next days and I believe it will make > things a lot clearer. > > > > > > gnt-network defines netparams per nodegroup (during connect) > > > > > which are the nicparams > > > > > each network's NIC will inherit. To sum up setting up any routing > > > > > rules (just like brctl commands) are kvm-ifup's responsibility. You > > > > > can always create/destroy bridges and routing tables automatically > > > > > using network related hooks too. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > You received this message because this project is configured to send > > > > > all issue notifications to this address. > > > > > You may adjust your notification preferences at: > > > > > https://code.google.com/hosting/settings > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jose Antonio Lopes > > > > Ganeti Engineering > > > > Google Germany GmbH > > > > Dienerstr. 12, 80331, München > > > > > > > > Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891 > > > > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg > > > > Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth Flores > > > > Steuernummer: 48/725/00206 > > > > Umsatzsteueridentifikationsnummer: DE813741370 > > > > > > > > -- > > Jose Antonio Lopes > > Ganeti Engineering > > Google Germany GmbH > > Dienerstr. 12, 80331, München > > > > Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891 > > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg > > Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth Flores > > Steuernummer: 48/725/00206 > > Umsatzsteueridentifikationsnummer: DE813741370
-- Jose Antonio Lopes Ganeti Engineering Google Germany GmbH Dienerstr. 12, 80331, München Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth Flores Steuernummer: 48/725/00206 Umsatzsteueridentifikationsnummer: DE813741370
