Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] static Portgroup support.

2016-08-10 Thread Michael Davies 
Thank you for creating these videos, they are great and certainly help my
understanding!

Michael...

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 5:58 PM, 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
>
> Sincerely,
> Vasyl Saienko
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Vasyl Saienko 
> 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
>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/332177
>> [2] https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/06c537fbe5bb4ac5a3012
>> 642c899df815872267c/nova/network/neutronv2/api.py#L270
>> [3] 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
>
>
-- 
Michael Davies   mich...@the-davies.net
Rackspace Cloud Builders Australia
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] static Portgroup support.

2016-08-10 Thread Devananda van der Veen 
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  > 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 
> 
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/332177 
> 
> [2]
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] static Portgroup support.

2016-08-09 Thread Jay Pipes 

On 08/09/2016 04:28 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


Just watched both the above demo videos. Great job Vasyl and Pavlo :)

Best,
-jay

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] static Portgroup support.

2016-08-09 Thread Vasyl Saienko 
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

Sincerely,
Vasyl Saienko

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Vasyl Saienko 
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
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/332177
> [2] https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/06c537fbe5bb4ac5a3012642c899df
> 815872267c/nova/network/neutronv2/api.py#L270
> [3] 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-dev] [ironic] static Portgroup support.

2016-07-19 Thread Vasyl Saienko 
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
[1] https://review.openstack.org/332177
[2]
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
__
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