On 12 February 2016 at 18:17, Andrew Laski <and...@lascii.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016, at 12:15 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: >> Forgive me for thinking out loud, but I'm trying to sort out how nova >> would use a microversion in the nova API for the get-me-a-network >> feature recently added to neutron [1] and planned to be leveraged in >> nova (there isn't a spec yet for nova, I'm trying to sort this out for a >> draft). >> >> Originally I was thinking that a network is required for nova boot, so >> we'd simply check for a microversion and allow not specifying a network, >> easy peasy. >> >> Turns out you can boot an instance in nova (with neutron as the network >> backend) without a network. All you get is a measly debug log message in >> the compute logs [2]. That's kind of useless though and seems silly. >> >> I haven't tested this out yet to confirm, but I suspect that if you >> create a nova instance w/o a network, you can latter try to attach a >> network using the os-attach-interfaces API as long as you either provide >> a network ID *or* there is a public shared network or the tenant has a >> network at that point (nova looks those up if a specific network ID >> isn't provided). >> >> The high-level plan for get-me-a-network in nova was simply going to be >> if the user tries to boot an instance and doesn't provide a network, and >> there isn't a tenant network or public shared network to default to, >> then nova would call neutron's new auto-allocated-topology API to get a >> network. This, however, is a behavior change. >> >> So I guess the question now is how do we handle that behavior change in >> the nova API? >> >> We could add an auto-create-net boolean to the boot server request which >> would only be available in a microversion, then we could check that >> boolean in the compute API when we're doing network validation. >> > > I think a flag like this is the right approach. If it's currently valid > to boot an instance without a network than there needs to be something > to distinguish a request that wants a network created vs. a request that > doesn't want a network. > > This is still hugely useful if all that's required from a user is to > indicate that they would like a network, they still don't need to > understand/provide details of the network.
I was thinking a sort of opposite. Would this work? We add a new micro-version that does this: * nothing specified: do the best we can to get a port created (get-me-a-network, etc,), or fail if not possible * --no-nics option (or similar) that says "please don't give me any nics" This means folks that don't want a network, reliably have a way to do that. For everyone else, we do the same thing when using either neutron or nova-network VLAN manager. Thanks, johnthetubaguy PS I think we should focus on the horizon experience, CLI experience, and API experience separately, for a moment, to make sure each of those cases actually works out OK. >> Today if you don't specify a network and don't have a network available, >> then the validation in the API is basically just quota checking that you >> can get at least one port in your tenant [3]. With a flag on a >> microversion, we could also validate some other things about >> auto-creating a network (if we know that's going to be the case once we >> hit the compute). >> >> Anyway, this is mostly me getting thoughts out of my head before the >> weekend so I don't forget it and am looking for other ideas here or >> things I might be missing. >> >> [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/get-me-a-network >> [2] >> https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/30ba0c5eb19a9c9628957ac8e617ae78c0c1fa84/nova/network/neutronv2/api.py#L594-L595 >> [3] >> https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/30ba0c5eb19a9c9628957ac8e617ae78c0c1fa84/nova/network/neutronv2/api.py#L1107 >> >> -- >> >> Thanks, >> >> Matt Riedemann >> >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> 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