Marking as won't fix as there is no agreement on needing this functionality. =================================================================================================== From: Michael Henkel Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 12:01 PM To: Nitish Krishna Kaveri Poompatnam Cc: Abhay Joshi , Jeba Paulaiyan , Ramprakash Ram Mohan , Alexey Morlang , Ignatious Johnson , Dheeraj Gautam , Chhandak Mukherjee , Senthilnathan Murugappan , Sarin Kizhakkepurayil , Alexandre Levine , Andrey Pavlov , Rudra Rugge 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 Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 8:54 PM To: Michael Henkel Cc: Abhay Joshi , Jeba Paulaiyan , Ramprakash Ram Mohan , Alexey Morlang , Ignatious Johnson , Dheeraj Gautam , Chhandak Mukherjee , Senthilnathan Murugappan , Sarin Kizhakkepurayil , Alexandre Levine , Andrey Pavlov , Rudra Rugge 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 Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 11:43 AM To: Nitish Krishna Kaveri Poompatnam Cc: Abhay Joshi , Jeba Paulaiyan , Ramprakash Ram Mohan , Alexey Morlang , Ignatious Johnson , Dheeraj Gautam , Chhandak Mukherjee , Senthilnathan Murugappan , Sarin Kizhakkepurayil , Alexandre Levine , Andrey Pavlov , Rudra Rugge 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 : 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 Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 11:01 AM To: Abhay Joshi , Nitish Krishna Kaveri Poompatnam , Jeba Paulaiyan Cc: Ramprakash Ram Mohan , Alexey Morlang , Ignatious Johnson , Dheeraj Gautam , Chhandak Mukherjee , Senthilnathan Murugappan , Sarin Kizhakkepurayil , Alexandre Levine , Andrey Pavlov , Rudra Rugge 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 Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 6:49 PM To: Nitish Krishna Kaveri Poompatnam , Jeba Paulaiyan , Michael Henkel Cc: Michael Henkel , Ramprakash Ram Mohan , Alexey Morlang , Ignatious Johnson , Dheeraj Gautam , Chhandak Mukherjee , Senthilnathan Murugappan , Sarin Kizhakkepurayil , Alexandre Levine , Andrey Pavlov 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 Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 9:38 AM To: Jeba Paulaiyan , Michael Henkel Cc: Michael Henkel , Ramprakash Ram Mohan , Alexey Morlang , Abhay Joshi , Ignatious Johnson , Dheeraj Gautam , Chhandak Mukherjee , Senthilnathan Murugappan , Sarin Kizhakkepurayil , Alexandre Levine , Andrey Pavlov 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 Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 6:08 AM To: Jeba Paulaiyan , Nitish Krishna Kaveri Poompatnam Cc: Michael Henkel , Ramprakash Ram Mohan , Alexey Morlang , Abhay Joshi , Ignatious Johnson , Dheeraj Gautam , Chhandak Mukherjee , Senthilnathan Murugappan , Sarin Kizhakkepurayil , Alexandre Levine 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 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 Date: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 11:30 PM To: Nitish Krishna Kaveri Poompatnam , Ramprakash Ram Mohan , Michael Henkel , Alexey Morlang , Abhay Joshi Cc: Ignatious Johnson , Dheeraj Gautam , Chhandak Mukherjee , Senthilnathan Murugappan , Sarin Kizhakkepurayil , "" 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 Date: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 10:07 To: Ramprakash Ram Mohan , Michael Henkel , Alexey Morlang , Abhay Joshi Cc: Jeba Paulaiyan , Ignatious Johnson , Dheeraj Gautam , Chhandak Mukherjee , Senthilnathan Murugappan , Sarin Kizhakkepurayil , "" 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 Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 2:37 PM To: Michael Henkel , Alexey Morlang Cc: Nitish Krishna Kaveri Poompatnam , Jeba Paulaiyan , Ignatious Johnson , Abhay Joshi , Dheeraj Gautam , Chhandak Mukherjee , Senthilnathan Murugappan , Sarin Kizhakkepurayil , "" 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 Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 2:32 PM To: Alexey Morlang Cc: Nitish Krishna Kaveri Poompatnam , Jeba Paulaiyan , Ramprakash Ram Mohan , Ignatious Johnson , Abhay Joshi , Dheeraj Gautam , Chhandak Mukherjee , Senthilnathan Murugappan , Sarin Kizhakkepurayil , "" 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 : 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 Date: Wednesday, 13 June 2018 at 23:40 To: Jeba Paulaiyan , Alexey Morlang Cc: Ignatious Johnson , Abhay Joshi , Ramprakash Ram Mohan , Dheeraj Gautam , Chhandak Mukherjee , Senthilnathan Murugappan , Sarin Kizhakkepurayil , "" , Michael Henkel 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 Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 1:38 PM To: Alexey Morlang , Nitish Krishna Kaveri Poompatnam Cc: Ignatious Johnson , Abhay Joshi , Ramprakash Ram Mohan , Dheeraj Gautam , Chhandak Mukherjee , Senthilnathan Murugappan , Sarin Kizhakkepurayil , "" , Michael Henkel 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 Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 13:36 To: Jeba Paulaiyan , Nitish Krishna Kaveri Poompatnam Cc: Ignatious Johnson , Abhay Joshi , Ramprakash Ram Mohan , Dheeraj Gautam , Chhandak Mukherjee , Senthilnathan Murugappan , Sarin Kizhakkepurayil , "" , Michael Henkel