Hi Kevin,
I am probably talking about non-sense. But will we allow chaining routers with
different flavors?
Taking it to the real world, if a router failed to attach to the external
network in your description, it may probably need another gateway device which
can do the bridging.
Otherwise, let's just leave the consequences to the user since there is no such
auto fail-over in physical world that you plug-in an unsupported device and the
whole system will magically auto-adjust and work.
Thanks,
Rui
------------------ Original ------------------
From: "Kevin Benton";<blak...@gmail.com>;
Send time: Monday, Feb 1, 2016 10:08 PM
To: "openstack-dev"<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>;
Subject: [openstack-dev] [neutron] - L3 flavors and issues with use casesfor
multiple L3 backends
Hi all,
I've been working on an implementation of the multiple L3 backends RFE[1] using
the flavor framework and I've run into some snags with the use-cases.[2]
The first use cases are relatively straightforward where the user requests a
specific flavor and that request gets dispatched to a driver associated with
that flavor via a service profile. However, several of the use-cases are based
around the idea that there is a single flavor with multiple drivers and a
specific driver will need to be used depending on the placement of the router
interfaces. i.e. a router cannot be bound to a driver until an interface is
attached.
This creates some painful coordination problems amongst drivers. For example,
say the first two networks that a user attaches a router to can be reached by
all drivers because they use overlays so the first driver chosen by the
framework works fine. Then the user connects to an external network which is
only reachable by a different driver. Do we immediately reschedule the entire
router at that point to the other driver and interrupt the traffic between the
first two networks?
Even if we are fine with a traffic interruption for rescheduling, what should
we do when a failure occurs half way through switching over because the new
driver fails to attach to one of the networks (or the old driver fails to
detach from one)? It would seem the correct API experience would be switch
everything back and then return a failure to the caller trying to add an
interface. This is where things get messy.
If there is a failure during the switch back, we now have a single router's
resources smeared across two drivers. We can drop the router into the ERROR
state and re-attempt the switch in a periodic task, or maybe just leave it
broken.
How should we handle this much orchestration? Should we pull in something like
taskflow, or maybe defer that use case for now?
What I want to avoid is what happened with ML2 where error handling is still a
TODO in several cases. (e.g. Any post-commit update or delete failures in
mechanism drivers will not trigger a revert in state.)
1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1461133
2. https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/neutron-modular-l3-router-plugin-use-cases
--
Kevin Benton
__________________________________________________________________________
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
