Hi, On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 1:52 AM Han Zhou <zhou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:58 AM Daniel Alvarez Sanchez > <dalva...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > Hi folks, > > > > Just wanted to throw an idea here about introducing availability zones > > (AZ) concept in OVN and get implementation ideas. From a CMS > > perspective, it makes sense to be able to implement some sort of > > logical division of resources into failure domains to maximize their > > availability. > > > > In this sense, establishing a full mesh of Geneve tunnels is not > > needed (and possibly undesired when strict firewalls are used between > > AZs) as L2 connectivity will be constrained to the AZ boundaries. > > > > A possibility would be to let the deployer of the CMS set a key on the > > OpenvSwitch table of the local OVS instance like > > 'external_ids:ovn_az=<int>' and if it's set, ovn-controller will > > register itself as a Chassis with the same external ID and establish > > tunnels to those Chassis within the same AZ, otherwise it'll keep the > > current behavior. > > > > It'll be responsibility of the CMS to schedule gateway ports in the > > right AZ as well to provide L3 AZ awareness. > > > > Does that make sense? Thoughts? > > > > Thanks a lot!! > > Daniel > > _______________________________________________ > > discuss mailing list > > disc...@openvswitch.org > > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss > > This sounds like a good idea to me. Just a concern for the name "AZ". > The feature seems to be quite useful to optimize at scale when you > know there are different groups of chassises (and gateways) would > never need to communicate with each other. However, it doesn't sound > like availability zone concept, since it is managed by a single > control plane, which means they are not independently availability > zones. I'd call it TZ (transport zone), or maybe just cell. However, I > like the idea and it seems not hard to be implemented. >
I agree with Han here, the idea is sound but the name seems a bit off. I specially liked the "transport zone" (TZs) suggested by Han here. So +1 to that name :D Quick question. Should we have a default TZ for the chassis/gateways that doesn't have that key set ? For example, if we have 9 chassis where three of them have the TZ key set to 1, three others setting TZ to 2 and remainder three left with no TZ key set. That should result in 3 different zones right ? I wanna clarify that because I don't think we should create a mash with all Chassis for those who doesn't have the TZ set, instead, if it's omitted ovn-controller could consider them to be part of a "default" TZ of some sort. What you think ? Is that aligned with your idea ? Cheers, Lucas _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list disc...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss