Bug #1755633 “[Microserivce] contrail-anasible-deployer should c...” : Bugs : Juniper Openstack

chhandak (chhandak) on 2018-03-14

Changed in juniperopenstack:
importance:	Undecided → High
milestone:	none → r5.0.0
information type:	Proprietary → Public

Jeba Paulaiyan (jebap) on 2018-03-14

tags:

added: ansible

Jeba Paulaiyan (jebap) on 2018-03-21

tags:	added: sanityblocker
tags:	added: blocker removed: sanityblocker

Jeba Paulaiyan (jebap) on 2018-06-13

tags:

added: beta-blocker
removed: blocker

Revision history for this message

Nitish Krishna Kaveri (nitishk) wrote on 2018-06-18:

#1

Static Route Setup script fails in verify route:

[root@nk-vm1 ~]# python /root/staticroute_setup.py --device eth1 --network 5.1.2.0 --netmask 255.255.255.0 --gw 5.1.2.254
2018-06-14 14:26:28,447:: restart_service:INFO:: Restarting Network Services...
Restarting network (via systemctl): [ OK ]
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/root/staticroute_setup.py", line 221, in <module>
    main()
  File "/root/staticroute_setup.py", line 218, in main
    route.setup()
  File "/root/staticroute_setup.py", line 107, in setup
    self.post_config()
  File "/root/staticroute_setup.py", line 99, in post_config
    self.verify_route()
  File "/root/staticroute_setup.py", line 93, in verify_route
    raise RuntimeError('Seems Routes are not properly configured')
RuntimeError: Seems Routes are not properly configured

Without the verify_route function call the script works and I am able to see the static route created

Revision history for this message

OpenContrail Admin (ci-admin-f) wrote on 2018-06-19: [Review update] master

#2

Review in progress for https://review.opencontrail.org/43862
Submitter: Nitish Krishna Kaveri (<email address hidden>)

Revision history for this message

OpenContrail Admin (ci-admin-f) wrote on 2018-06-19: [Review update] R5.0

#4

Review in progress for https://review.opencontrail.org/43968
Submitter: Nitish Krishna Kaveri (<email address hidden>)

Revision history for this message

OpenContrail Admin (ci-admin-f) wrote on 2018-06-19: [Review update] master

#6

Review in progress for https://review.opencontrail.org/43862
Submitter: Nitish Krishna Kaveri (<email address hidden>)

Revision history for this message

OpenContrail Admin (ci-admin-f) wrote on 2018-06-19: [Review update] R5.0

#10

Review in progress for https://review.opencontrail.org/43968
Submitter: Nitish Krishna Kaveri (<email address hidden>)

Revision history for this message

Abhay Joshi (abhayj) wrote on 2018-06-20:

#12

Download full text (20.7 KiB)

Marking as won't fix as there is no agreement on needing this functionality.
===================================================================================================

From: Michael Henkel <email address hidden>
Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 12:01 PM
To: Nitish Krishna Kaveri Poompatnam <email address hidden>
Cc: Abhay Joshi <email address hidden>, Jeba Paulaiyan <email address hidden>, Ramprakash Ram Mohan <email address hidden>, Alexey Morlang <email address hidden>, Ignatious Johnson <email address hidden>, Dheeraj Gautam <email address hidden>, Chhandak Mukherjee <email address hidden>, Senthilnathan Murugappan <email address hidden>, Sarin Kizhakkepurayil <email address hidden>, Alexandre Levine <email address hidden>, Andrey Pavlov <email address hidden>, Rudra Rugge <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Support for adding static routes to hosts - LP 1755633

Hi Nitish,

The mail to Ram got stuck in my outbox:

“The provision_instances playbook was done out of convenience for very quick testing and mainly focused on public cloud instances where you usually don’t have more than one interface.
IF (and that’s a very BIG IF) we want to add interface management – then in that playbook. But I will not be in charge for it.”

Now, you are saying that provision_instances doesn’t deploy operating systems on BMS – correct – this has never been the scope. So, if you are talking in the context of BMS – how is the BMS being installed? Whatever does the operating system provisioning should also be in charge for managing the network interface configuration.
And no, I don’t want to take back the -2 as I don’t want that much Contrail deployment unrelated code in the contrail ansible deployer.

Regards,
Michael

From: Nitish Krishna Kaveri Poompatnam <email address hidden>
Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 8:54 PM
To: Michael Henkel <email address hidden>
Cc: Abhay Joshi <email address hidden>, Jeba Paulaiyan <email address hidden>, Ramprakash Ram Mohan <email address hidden>, Alexey Morlang <email address hidden>, Ignatious Johnson <email address hidden>, Dheeraj Gautam <email address hidden>, Chhandak Mukherjee <email address hidden>, Senthilnathan Murugappan <email address hidden>, Sarin Kizhakkepurayil <email address hidden>, Alexandre Levine <email address hidden>, Andrey Pavlov <email address hidden>, Rudra Rugge <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Support for adding static routes to hosts - LP 1755633

Hi Michael,

Honestly, I am very confused. I do not know what was discussed between you and Ram.
By right place do you mean “configure_instances” play?
As Ram mentioned in previous mail, for BMS servers, we only call “configure_instances” play and not “provision_instances”
We need to manage these network interfaces according to request from Jeba.

Do you agree that the check-in made is correct? In which case please remove your -2 here:
https://review.opencontrail.org/#/c/43862/

If you feel this should go somewhere else, please tell me clearly where it should go or any other review comments as well.
I am going on PTO Friday onwards and want to finish this task and hand off before I go.
I would really appreciate your help to close on t...

Marking as won't fix as there is no agreement on needing this functionality.
===================================================================================================

From: Michael Henkel <mhenkel@juniper.net>
Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 12:01 PM
To: Nitish Krishna Kaveri Poompatnam <nitishk@juniper.net>
Cc: Abhay Joshi <abhayj@juniper.net>, Jeba Paulaiyan <jebap@juniper.net>, Ramprakash Ram Mohan <rammohan@juniper.net>, Alexey Morlang <alexey.morlang@gmail.com>, Ignatious Johnson <ijohnson@juniper.net>, Dheeraj Gautam <dgautam@juniper.net>, Chhandak Mukherjee <chhandak@juniper.net>, Senthilnathan Murugappan <msenthil@juniper.net>, Sarin Kizhakkepurayil <sarink@juniper.net>, Alexandre Levine <alexandrelevine@gmail.com>, Andrey Pavlov <andrey.mp@gmail.com>, Rudra Rugge <rrugge@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: Support for adding static routes to hosts - LP 1755633

Hi Nitish,
 
The mail to Ram got stuck in my outbox:
 
“The provision_instances playbook was done out of convenience for very quick testing and mainly focused on public cloud instances where you usually don’t have more than one interface.
IF (and that’s a very BIG IF) we want to add interface management – then in that playbook. But I will not be in charge for it.”
 
Now, you are saying that provision_instances doesn’t deploy operating systems on BMS – correct – this has never been the scope. So, if you are talking in the context of BMS – how is the BMS being installed? Whatever does the operating system provisioning should also be in charge for managing the network interface configuration.
And no, I don’t want to take back the -2 as I don’t want that much Contrail deployment unrelated code in the contrail ansible deployer. 
 
Regards,
Michael
 
From: Nitish Krishna Kaveri Poompatnam <nitishk@juniper.net>
Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 8:54 PM
To: Michael Henkel <mhenkel@juniper.net>
Cc: Abhay Joshi <abhayj@juniper.net>, Jeba Paulaiyan <jebap@juniper.net>, Ramprakash Ram Mohan <rammohan@juniper.net>, Alexey Morlang <alexey.morlang@gmail.com>, Ignatious Johnson <ijohnson@juniper.net>, Dheeraj Gautam <dgautam@juniper.net>, Chhandak Mukherjee <chhandak@juniper.net>, Senthilnathan Murugappan <msenthil@juniper.net>, Sarin Kizhakkepurayil <sarink@juniper.net>, Alexandre Levine <alexandrelevine@gmail.com>, Andrey Pavlov <andrey.mp@gmail.com>, Rudra Rugge <rrugge@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: Support for adding static routes to hosts - LP 1755633
 
Hi Michael,
 
Honestly, I am very confused. I do not know what was discussed between you and Ram.
By right place do you mean “configure_instances” play?
As Ram mentioned in previous mail, for BMS servers, we only call “configure_instances” play and not “provision_instances”
We need to manage these network interfaces according to request from Jeba.
 
Do you agree that the check-in made is correct? In which case please remove your -2 here:
https://review.opencontrail.org/#/c/43862/
 
If you feel this should go somewhere else, please tell me clearly where it should go or any other review comments as well.
I am going on PTO Friday onwards and want to finish this task and hand off before I go.
I would really appreciate your help to close on this.
 
Thanks,
Nitish
 
From: Michael Henkel <mhenkel@juniper.net>
Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 11:43 AM
To: Nitish Krishna Kaveri Poompatnam <nitishk@juniper.net>
Cc: Abhay Joshi <abhayj@juniper.net>, Jeba Paulaiyan <jebap@juniper.net>, Ramprakash Ram Mohan <rammohan@juniper.net>, Alexey Morlang <alexey.morlang@gmail.com>, Ignatious Johnson <ijohnson@juniper.net>, Dheeraj Gautam <dgautam@juniper.net>, Chhandak Mukherjee <chhandak@juniper.net>, Senthilnathan Murugappan <msenthil@juniper.net>, Sarin Kizhakkepurayil <sarink@juniper.net>, Alexandre Levine <alexandrelevine@gmail.com>, Andrey Pavlov <andrey.mp@gmail.com>, Rudra Rugge <rrugge@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: Support for adding static routes to hosts - LP 1755633
 
Nitish, 
 
As I mentioned to Ram - I did this out of convince for quickly deploying a system to test code. The main use case was deploying public cloud instances. If we really want to add things like managing network interfaces then this is the right place to do it.
 
Regards, 
Michael

Am 20.06.2018 um 20:33 schrieb Nitish Krishna Kaveri Poompatnam <nitishk@juniper.net>:
Hi Michael,
 
If you are saying that configuring network interfaces should not be part of contrail-ansible-deployer, then why was this check-in allowed to merge:
https://review.opencontrail.org/#/c/43540/1
It is doing exactly the same thing for KVM instead of Physical Servers.
In fact, I was told to use above as a sample by Alexey for my own check-in.
If this was not the correct place/ correct thing to do, then why was I given these instructions?
You were CC’ed on all mails from the beginning but did not flag this issue till now.
I frankly feel like I have wasted my time.
 
Thanks,
Nitish
 
From: Michael Henkel <mhenkel@juniper.net>
Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 11:01 AM
To: Abhay Joshi <abhayj@juniper.net>, Nitish Krishna Kaveri Poompatnam <nitishk@juniper.net>, Jeba Paulaiyan <jebap@juniper.net>
Cc: Ramprakash Ram Mohan <rammohan@juniper.net>, Alexey Morlang <alexey.morlang@gmail.com>, Ignatious Johnson <ijohnson@juniper.net>, Dheeraj Gautam <dgautam@juniper.net>, Chhandak Mukherjee <chhandak@juniper.net>, Senthilnathan Murugappan <msenthil@juniper.net>, Sarin Kizhakkepurayil <sarink@juniper.net>, Alexandre Levine <alexandrelevine@gmail.com>, Andrey Pavlov <andrey.mp@gmail.com>, Rudra Rugge <rrugge@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: Support for adding static routes to hosts - LP 1755633
 
Hi Abhay,
 
No, this cannot be the contrail ansible deployer. We are getting back into the mode where we are trying to provide a one-fits-all tool with absolutely no market relevance. No customer will use our tool to do ordinary operating system deployment and configuration (how many customers did we have using SM?). We neither have the man power nor the experience to create a tool which will cover all use-cases. There are much better tools out there and we are not in the business of operating system management. If people don’t want to manually configure interfaces and do operating system management – let them use tripleo, Director, SM, MaaS etc (with the preference clearly on tripleo). We have to draw the line – and that line is between setting up a bunch of static routes and configuring network interfaces.
And again, contrail ansible deployer focus is on getting Contrail quickly up and running. It does carry out some very basic tasks required for that (setting ntp, dns, docker registry, installing the pre-requisites needed by Contrail). Managing network interfaces is a different league and it will never work to full satisfactory. 
I will not stop anyone creating an additional playbook replicating what a dozen of other tools already do and writing a wrapper around it to call contrail ansible deployer – but it’s not going to be part of the contrail ansible deployer. 
I already regret that we integrated kolla into it – this created a lot of headache and now we are disintegrating it again. 
And calling multiple playbooks from a single playbook is definitely NOT the way to go as this creates interdependencies which can never be resolved – this is the lesson we learned the VERY hard way from the kolla integration.
The only way to make this work is a northbound orchestration system which call playbooks in a sequence. I made the start with it (https://github.com/michaelhenkel/contrail-deployer) but nobody picked it up so far. 
 
Regards,
Michael
 
From: Abhay Joshi <abhayj@juniper.net>
Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 6:49 PM
To: Nitish Krishna Kaveri Poompatnam <nitishk@juniper.net>, Jeba Paulaiyan <jebap@juniper.net>, Michael Henkel <mhenkel@juniper.net>
Cc: Michael Henkel <mhenkel@juniper.net>, Ramprakash Ram Mohan <rammohan@juniper.net>, Alexey Morlang <alexey.morlang@gmail.com>, Ignatious Johnson <ijohnson@juniper.net>, Dheeraj Gautam <dgautam@juniper.net>, Chhandak Mukherjee <chhandak@juniper.net>, Senthilnathan Murugappan <msenthil@juniper.net>, Sarin Kizhakkepurayil <sarink@juniper.net>, Alexandre Levine <alexandrelevine@gmail.com>, Andrey Pavlov <andrey.mp@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Support for adding static routes to hosts - LP 1755633
 
Michael,
 
I would disagree with you. The whole idea of having single ansible playbook is to simplify things for user. Contrail-ansible-deployer plays this role. Underneath it calls different playbooks such as config_instances, install_contrail, install_openstack etc. It can also call other modules as needed. We do not want user to have to run multiple playbooks.
 
Getting the base host ready is one such task that is needed to have contrail and other components running on it. So, we can certainly add these tasks such as configuring interfaces, static routes, having additional packages on the base host installed etc encompassed in a separate playbook – e.g. config_host.yml, BUT WE NEED TO HAVE A WAY OF CALLING THAT FROM SINGLE PLAYBOOK LIKE contrail-ansible-deployer.
 
Thanks,
 
Abhay 
 
From: Nitish Krishna Kaveri Poompatnam <nitishk@juniper.net>
Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 9:38 AM
To: Jeba Paulaiyan <jebap@juniper.net>, Michael Henkel <mhenkel@juniper.net>
Cc: Michael Henkel <mhenkel@juniper.net>, Ramprakash Ram Mohan <rammohan@juniper.net>, Alexey Morlang <alexey.morlang@gmail.com>, Abhay Joshi <abhayj@juniper.net>, Ignatious Johnson <ijohnson@juniper.net>, Dheeraj Gautam <dgautam@juniper.net>, Chhandak Mukherjee <chhandak@juniper.net>, Senthilnathan Murugappan <msenthil@juniper.net>, Sarin Kizhakkepurayil <sarink@juniper.net>, Alexandre Levine <alexandrelevine@gmail.com>, Andrey Pavlov <andrey.mp@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Support for adding static routes to hosts - LP 1755633
 
Michael,
 
According to your comment on the review:
 
“This is too much for the ansible deployer. Ansible deployer is NOT an operating system manager. It must do the bare minimum of what is required to make contrail functioning. Creating interfaces and configuring BONDs must not be part of it.
This has to be done by a higher layer orchestration system.”
 
Today we do not have any “higher layer orchestration system” that helps to setup bonding and other interface related tasks. This used to be done by Server Manager on reimage but we no longer have that in 5.0.
I was instructed clearly by Jeba that BOTH static routes and interfaces are needed for contrail to be provisioned.
 
The confusing part is that adding additional interfaces and configuring them is ALREADY part of contrail-ansible-deployer as seen below:
https://review.opencontrail.org/#/c/43540/
 
I was shown above as sample by Alexey.
 
So if your statement that “Creating interfaces and configuring BONDs must not be part of it” then was above check-in merged?
If this code is not supposed to be part of ansible-deployer code and we don’t have SM, who is responsible for it?
 
Please let us know how to proceed. 
Thanks,
Nitish
 
From: Andrey Pavlov <andrey.mp@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 6:08 AM
To: Jeba Paulaiyan <jebap@juniper.net>, Nitish Krishna Kaveri Poompatnam <nitishk@juniper.net>
Cc: Michael Henkel <mhenkel@juniper.net>, Ramprakash Ram Mohan <rammohan@juniper.net>, Alexey Morlang <alexey.morlang@gmail.com>, Abhay Joshi <abhayj@juniper.net>, Ignatious Johnson <ijohnson@juniper.net>, Dheeraj Gautam <dgautam@juniper.net>, Chhandak Mukherjee <chhandak@juniper.net>, Senthilnathan Murugappan <msenthil@juniper.net>, Sarin Kizhakkepurayil <sarink@juniper.net>, Alexandre Levine <alexandrelevine@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Support for adding static routes to hosts - LP 1755633
 
+ Alex

Regards, 
Andrey Pavlov.
 
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Michael Henkel <mhenkel@juniper.net> wrote:
Hi Jeba,
 
I reviewed – and we cannot do that. The plan was to keep ansible deployer small and simple and focus on things required to make Contrail working. Creating network interfaces is not in scope of that.
 
Regards,
Michael
 
From: Jeba Paulaiyan <jebap@juniper.net>
Date: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 11:30 PM
To: Nitish Krishna Kaveri Poompatnam <nitishk@juniper.net>, Ramprakash Ram Mohan <rammohan@juniper.net>, Michael Henkel <mhenkel@juniper.net>, Alexey Morlang <alexey.morlang@gmail.com>, Abhay Joshi <abhayj@juniper.net>
Cc: Ignatious Johnson <ijohnson@juniper.net>, Dheeraj Gautam <dgautam@juniper.net>, Chhandak Mukherjee <chhandak@juniper.net>, Senthilnathan Murugappan <msenthil@juniper.net>, Sarin Kizhakkepurayil <sarink@juniper.net>, "andrey.mp@gmail.com" <andrey.mp@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: Support for adding static routes to hosts - LP 1755633
 
Alexey, Ram, Michael,
 
       Can we get this reviewed? Nitish is going on vacation so it would help if we tell him now if anything need to be re-coded.
 
Thanks,
Jeba
 
From: Nitish Krishna Kaveri Poompatnam <nitishk@juniper.net>
Date: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 10:07
To: Ramprakash Ram Mohan <rammohan@juniper.net>, Michael Henkel <mhenkel@juniper.net>, Alexey Morlang <alexey.morlang@gmail.com>, Abhay Joshi <abhayj@juniper.net>
Cc: Jeba Paulaiyan <jebap@juniper.net>, Ignatious Johnson <ijohnson@juniper.net>, Dheeraj Gautam <dgautam@juniper.net>, Chhandak Mukherjee <chhandak@juniper.net>, Senthilnathan Murugappan <msenthil@juniper.net>, Sarin Kizhakkepurayil <sarink@juniper.net>, "andrey.mp@gmail.com" <andrey.mp@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Support for adding static routes to hosts - LP 1755633
 
Hi all,
 
I have made a provisional check-in for this at:
https://review.opencontrail.org/#/c/43862/
and 5.0 cherry-pick at:
https://review.opencontrail.org/#/c/43968/
 
I am running the interface_setup and staticroute_setup scripts as part of configure_instances playbook as of now.
 
Please review and give any necessary additional feedback.
After this gets merged I will discuss and handover to Ignatious/Sarin for Go Agent/UI support.
 
Thanks,
Nitish
 
From: Ramprakash Ram Mohan <rammohan@juniper.net>
Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 2:37 PM
To: Michael Henkel <mhenkel@juniper.net>, Alexey Morlang <alexey.morlang@gmail.com>
Cc: Nitish Krishna Kaveri Poompatnam <nitishk@juniper.net>, Jeba Paulaiyan <jebap@juniper.net>, Ignatious Johnson <ijohnson@juniper.net>, Abhay Joshi <abhayj@juniper.net>, Dheeraj Gautam <dgautam@juniper.net>, Chhandak Mukherjee <chhandak@juniper.net>, Senthilnathan Murugappan <msenthil@juniper.net>, Sarin Kizhakkepurayil <sarink@juniper.net>, "andrey.mp@gmail.com" <andrey.mp@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Support for adding static routes to hosts - LP 1755633
 
Hi Michael,
 
But for BMS, we don’t run provision_instances play. Are you saying, if we have additional_interfaces, we will then need to run provision_instances play as well? In that case, why not set static routes as part of the provision_instances as well?
 
Thanks,
Ram
 
From: Michael Henkel <mhenkel@juniper.net>
Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 2:32 PM
To: Alexey Morlang <alexey.morlang@gmail.com>
Cc: Nitish Krishna Kaveri Poompatnam <nitishk@juniper.net>, Jeba Paulaiyan <jebap@juniper.net>, Ramprakash Ram Mohan <rammohan@juniper.net>, Ignatious Johnson <ijohnson@juniper.net>, Abhay Joshi <abhayj@juniper.net>, Dheeraj Gautam <dgautam@juniper.net>, Chhandak Mukherjee <chhandak@juniper.net>, Senthilnathan Murugappan <msenthil@juniper.net>, Sarin Kizhakkepurayil <sarink@juniper.net>, "andrey.mp@gmail.com" <andrey.mp@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Support for adding static routes to hosts - LP 1755633
 
additional_interfaces is for provision_instances play. 
I think setting static routes should be part of configure_instances play.
format could be:
instances:
  instance1:
    static_routes:
      - ip_netmask: 1.1.1.0/24
         nexthop: 10.0.0.1
Regards, 
Michael

Am 13.06.2018 um 23:04 schrieb Alexey Morlang <alexey.morlang@gmail.com>:
I just gave an example how it was started in kvm…
Your configs are wider and example from kvm looks as a small subset of that.
IMHO, a good start would be a writing config in format as is in your example (just converted to yaml) under  in the same section as in review (additional_interfaces).
Ram, Michael what are your thoughts?
 
 
From: Nitish Krishna Kaveri Poompatnam <nitishk@juniper.net>
Date: Wednesday, 13 June 2018 at 23:40
To: Jeba Paulaiyan <jebap@juniper.net>, Alexey Morlang <alexey.morlang@gmail.com>
Cc: Ignatious Johnson <ijohnson@juniper.net>, Abhay Joshi <abhayj@juniper.net>, Ramprakash Ram Mohan <rammohan@juniper.net>, Dheeraj Gautam <dgautam@juniper.net>, Chhandak Mukherjee <chhandak@juniper.net>, Senthilnathan Murugappan <msenthil@juniper.net>, Sarin Kizhakkepurayil <sarink@juniper.net>, "andrey.mp@gmail.com" <andrey.mp@gmail.com>, Michael Henkel <mhenkel@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: Support for adding static routes to hosts - LP 1755633
 
Hi Alexey,
 
We will need config for both static routes as well as multiple interfaces. Please see this example in 4.1:
 
Interfaces:
https://github.com/Juniper/contrail-server-manager/blob/master/src/client/new-server-contrail-4.x.json#L148
 
Static Routes:
https://github.com/Juniper/contrail-server-manager/blob/master/src/client/new-server-contrail-4.x.json#L196
 
Please give me sample input based on above two, that will be really helpful.
 
Thanks,
Nitish
 
From: Jeba Paulaiyan <jebap@juniper.net>
Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 1:38 PM
To: Alexey Morlang <alexey.morlang@gmail.com>, Nitish Krishna Kaveri Poompatnam <nitishk@juniper.net>
Cc: Ignatious Johnson <ijohnson@juniper.net>, Abhay Joshi <abhayj@juniper.net>, Ramprakash Ram Mohan <rammohan@juniper.net>, Dheeraj Gautam <dgautam@juniper.net>, Chhandak Mukherjee <chhandak@juniper.net>, Senthilnathan Murugappan <msenthil@juniper.net>, Sarin Kizhakkepurayil <sarink@juniper.net>, "andrey.mp@gmail.com" <andrey.mp@gmail.com>, Michael Henkel <mhenkel@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: Support for adding static routes to hosts - LP 1755633
 
Thanks Alexey.
 
Nitish,
 
      Can you review the kvm configuration and say if you have everything to make it up this use-case?
 
Thanks,
Jeba
 
From: Alexey Morlang <alexey.morlang@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 13:36
To: Jeba Paulaiyan <jebap@juniper.net>, Nitish Krishna Kaveri Poompatnam <nitishk@juniper.net>
Cc: Ignatious Johnson <ijohnson@juniper.net>, Abhay Joshi <abhayj@juniper.net>, Ramprakash Ram Mohan <rammohan@juniper.net>, Dheeraj Gautam <dgautam@juniper.net>, Chhandak Mukherjee <chhandak@juniper.net>, Senthilnathan Murugappan <msenthil@juniper.net>, Sarin Kizhakkepurayil <sarink@juniper.net>, "andrey.mp@gmail.com" <andrey.mp@gmail.com>, Michael Henkel <mhenkel@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: Support for adding static routes to hosts - LP 1755633
 
Hi,
Please look at https://review.opencontrail.org/#/c/43540/  
There is some impl for kvm for additional interfaces..
I would suggest to reuse the same format.
 
 
From: Jeba Paulaiyan <jebap@juniper.net>
Date: Wednesday, 13 June 2018 at 23:02
To: Michael Henkel <mhenkel@juniper.net>
Cc: Ignatious Johnson <ijohnson@juniper.net>, Abhay Joshi <abhayj@juniper.net>, Ramprakash Ram Mohan <rammohan@juniper.net>, Nitish Krishna Kaveri Poompatnam <nitishk@juniper.net>, Dheeraj Gautam <dgautam@juniper.net>, Chhandak Mukherjee <chhandak@juniper.net>, Senthilnathan Murugappan <msenthil@juniper.net>, Sarin Kizhakkepurayil <sarink@juniper.net>, "alexey.morlang@gmail.com" <alexey.morlang@gmail.com>, "andrey.mp@gmail.com" <andrey.mp@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Support for adding static routes to hosts - LP 1755633
 
Thanks Michael.
 
Ram, Alexey – can you please propose how this need to be defined in yaml file? Nitish can take it over from there.
 
Thanks,
Jeba
 
From: Michael Henkel <mhenkel@juniper.net>
Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 12:54
To: Jeba Paulaiyan <jebap@juniper.net>
Cc: Ignatious Johnson <ijohnson@juniper.net>, Abhay Joshi <abhayj@juniper.net>, Ramprakash Ram Mohan <rammohan@juniper.net>, Nitish Krishna Kaveri Poompatnam <nitishk@juniper.net>, Dheeraj Gautam <dgautam@juniper.net>, Chhandak Mukherjee <chhandak@juniper.net>, Senthilnathan Murugappan <msenthil@juniper.net>, Sarin Kizhakkepurayil <sarink@juniper.net>, "alexey.morlang@gmail.com" <alexey.morlang@gmail.com>, "andrey.mp@gmail.com" <andrey.mp@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Support for adding static routes to hosts - LP 1755633
 
Hi Jeba, 
 
sounds good.
Regards, 
Michael

Am 13.06.2018 um 19:30 schrieb Jeba Paulaiyan <jebap@juniper.net>:
Hi Michael, Ignatious,
 
          Can we get a design level conclusion on this? If we decide on this asap, Nitish said he has some BW to help this week/next week.
 
https://bugs.launchpad.net/juniperopenstack/+bug/1755633
 
 
We want the support to add static routes to the hosts. This is required for Fabric, where the DC fabric typically will be in different network. This will be needed for supporting computes across multiple subnets also.
 
I am thinking of the following workflow. If we agree to this, can we get this done asap?
 
1.      Define yaml definitions for adding static routes in hosts. – Michael/Ram
2.      Nitish can help code the ansible part - Nitish
3.      Ignatious can integrate to go-apis - Ignatious
4.      Sarin can add knobs in UI for specifying host routes – Sarin
 
 
Thanks,
Jeba

Revision history for this message

Nitish Krishna Kaveri (nitishk) wrote on 2018-06-20:

#13

Acc. to Michael, whoever is responsible for deploying the OS is also responsible for this. Will not be handled in Contrail Ansible Deployer code

Changed in juniperopenstack:
status:	In Progress → Won't Fix

	Status	Importance	Assigned to	Milestone
Juniper Openstack	Won't Fix	Critical	Nitish Krishna Kaveri	Juniper Openstack r5.1.0
R5.0	Won't Fix	Critical	Nitish Krishna Kaveri	Juniper Openstack r5.0.1
Trunk	Won't Fix	Critical	Nitish Krishna Kaveri	Juniper Openstack r5.1.0

Juniper Openstack

[Microserivce] contrail-anasible-deployer should configure secondary interface and static route

Bug Description

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches