On 08/09/2016 01:28 AM, Vasyl Saienko wrote: > Hello Ironic'ers! > > We've recorded a demo that shows how static portgroup works at the moment: > > Flat network scenario: https://youtu.be/vBlH0ie6Lm4 > Multitenant network scenario: https://youtu.be/Kk5Cc_K1tV8
Awesome! Thank you for creating & sharing these demos! --deva > > Sincerely, > Vasyl Saienko > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Vasyl Saienko <vsaie...@mirantis.com > <mailto:vsaie...@mirantis.com>> wrote: > > Hello Community, > > Current portgroup scenario is not fully clear for me. The related spec [3] > doesn't clearly describe it. And based on implementation [1] and [2] I > guess > it should work in the following fashion for node with 3 NICs, where eth1 > and > eth2 are members of Porgroup Po0/1 > > Node network connection info: > eth1 (aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:f1) <---> Gig0/1 > eth2 (aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:f2) <---> Gig0/2 > eth3 (aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:f3) <---> Gig0/3 > > For FLAT network scenario: > 1. Administrator enrol ironic node. > 2. Administrator creates a 3 ports for each interface, and a portgroup > that > contains eth0 and eth1 ports. > 3. The ports Gig0/1 and Gig0/2 are added to portgroup Po0/1 manually on > the > switch. > 4. When user request to boot an instance, Nova randomly picks interface > [2], > it might be a portgroup or single NIC interface. Proposed change [1] do > not > allow to specify what exactly network type we would like to use single NIC > or portgroup. > > For multitenancy case: > All looks the same, in addition administrator adds local_link_connection > information for each port (local_link_connection 'port_id' field is > 'Gig0/1' > for eth1, 'Gig0/2' for eth2 and 'Gig0/3' for eth3, ). Ironic send this > information to Neutron who plugs ports to needed network. > > The same user-scenario is available at the moment without any changes to > Nova or Ironic. The difference is that administrator creates one port for > single interface eth3 with local_link_connection 'port_id'='Gig0/3', and > a > port that is a logical representation of portgroup (eth1 and eth2) with > local_link_connection 'port_id'='Po0/1'. > > Please let me know if I've missed something or misunderstood current > portgroup scenario. > > Reference: > [0] https://review.openstack.org/206163 > <https://review.openstack.org/206163> > [1] https://review.openstack.org/332177 > <https://review.openstack.org/332177> > [2] > > https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/06c537fbe5bb4ac5a3012642c899df815872267c/nova/network/neutronv2/api.py#L270 > > <https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/06c537fbe5bb4ac5a3012642c899df815872267c/nova/network/neutronv2/api.py#L270> > [3] > > https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/ironic-specs/specs/not-implemented/ironic-ml2-integration.html > > <https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/ironic-specs/specs/not-implemented/ironic-ml2-integration.html> > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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
