Ok, I've gotten to most of the list and things seem to be working. Nics plug, Gateway IPs add, networks create, SNATs working, ACLs working. The ones I haven't gotten to are:
*Site2SiteVpnCfgCommand and two which weren't on the original list that I just came across (will check for others): *SetPortForwardingRulesVpcCommand *CheckS2SVpnConnectionsCommand *SetStaticRouteCommand In addition, the following observations have been made and not yet fixed. If anyone has feedback on these (even a 'yeah, that doesn't work', or 'hmm, that should be working') so I can gauge whether I should dig into them or not I'd appreciate it. I don't want to break something that should be working or is working for someone else. * listNetworkACLs always returns an empty listnetworkaclsresponse * not getting default ACLs, not getting any with new tiers/vms, however setting ACLs via API works * password server is broken (saw the other thread where it's a dev binding issue... is someone actively looking at this?) * static route button in UI doesn't do anything when clicked (I would expect at least a dialogue or a fail message because the SetStaticRouteCommand is missing) On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:21 PM >> To: Edison Su >> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Anthony Xu; Kelven Yang; >> Vijayendra Bhamidipati >> Subject: Re: VPC for KVM (was VM router spawning multiple public nics) >> >> I've made some good progress today, I'll probably have it all working >> tomorrow, but I have a question. Looking at the API command >> associateIpAddress and the functional spec, if I pass a vpcId it then >> calls associateIPToVpc. Unlike its brother, associateIPToNetwork, I >> don't clearly see where the ip is actually put on the router, I only >> see it marking the ip allocated in the database. The functional spec >> reads as though this IP should be on the VPC. Maybe I'm just not >> getting that bolded statement 'All ip addresses get allocated to the >> VPC', my first thought is that of course they would, any IP I allocate >> gets put on the router... I guess I just need to play with it a bit >> more. > > After reading the functional spec, my guess is that: > One VPC has multiple guest networks(one guest network is a tenant, e.g VLAN). > On the guest network, there are a lot of VMs running on it. > All of these VMs will use ip address range allocated from guest > network(createnetwork api), usually they are using internal ip address. > Regarding to these commands: > 1. AssociateIPAddrCmd > "in VPC setup as a result of associateIpAddress all ip addresses get > allocated to VPC " means public ip address(when creating a zone, you'd > specify public ip address range) are belong to a VPC, you can associate a > public address to a guest network which attached to a VPC. > In the router, it will add a public ip address on an ethX(which is created on > public.network.device on kvm host), add a routing table(routing guest network > gateway to that public ip). So after that, user VMs created on that guest > network should be able to access public network through that public ip. > 2. There are other commands(netwrok), which do some magic inside router vm, > basically implement the features like, who can access this guest network, how > to set up a portforwording rule for guest network etc. > >> >> Not in front of the code at the moment, I just thought of a few more >> quick questions that would help... What is the expected outcome of the >> default rules? no access between private networks, but public access >> for every network? > > By default, all incoming traffic to guest networks is blocked, but outgoing > traffic should work. > >> >> The functional spec mentions public and private gateways, does public >> refer to giving someone say a /24 of public address space and then >> creating a route on our router to their VPC router, i.e. public >> networks instead of NATed ones? > > All of these gateways are referring to gateways inside router VM, not any > physical router/gateway. > The public refer to the network created on public.network.device on your kvm > host. > The private gateways referring to network created on guest.network.device on > your kvm host. > In a VPC setup, the router can have multiple guest network(a.k. multiple > private gateways) and multiple public networks. > You can call AssociateIPAddrCmd to bind a public ip to a guest network, then > can implement portforwording etc. > > I am not VPC expert, my answer is not authoritative as it looks like:) > Correct me if I am wrong. > >> >> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Yes, thanks for clarifying. >> > >> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com> >> wrote: >> >> Oh, I see, there are two kinds of commands: >> >> One doesn't need to get information from libvirt, which just login >> into router vm and program rules. For these commands, we can put them >> into virtualRoutingResource. >> >> Another does need to get infor from libvirt, such ipassoc, which >> need to get nic infor from libvirt, and plug in vif if needed. For >> these commands, need to be implemented in libvirtcomputingresource. >> While if it needs to access/program router, then add put that code in >> virtualroutingresource. >> >> >> >> Does it make sense? >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] >> >>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:47 AM >> >>> To: Edison Su >> >>> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Anthony Xu; Kelven Yang; >> >>> Vijayendra Bhamidipati >> >>> Subject: Re: VPC for KVM (was VM router spawning multiple public >> nics) >> >>> >> >>> Ok, I think I get it. For example when I'm looking at >> IpAssocCommand >> >>> it calls _virtRouterResource.assignPublicIpAddress to actually run >> the >> >>> sh. So with SetupGuestNetworkCommand, I'll create that in >> >>> LibvirtComputingResource, and within that I'll make a call to >> >>> VirtualRoutingResource to do the work... is that right? >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Marcus Sorensen >> <shadow...@gmail.com> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> > Just want to clarify: >> >>> > >> >>> > "We can add implementation of >> >>> > >> >>> >> SetupGuestNetworkCommand/SetNetworkACLCommand/SetSourceNatCommand/Site2 >> >>> SiteVpnCfgCommand >> >>> > in VirtualRoutingResource." >> >>> > >> >>> > So the Xen implementation of SetupGuestNetworkCommand is in >> >>> > CitrixResourceBase.java, and the VMware one is in >> VmwareResource.java, >> >>> > but you're saying I should put an implementation of these in >> >>> > VirtualRoutingResource.java for KVM? Sorry, still trying to piece >> >>> > together how everything relates. >> >>> > >> >>> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Edison Su >> <edison...@citrix.com> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> Yes, it is. >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> >>> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] >> >>> >>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:45 AM >> >>> >>> To: Edison Su >> >>> >>> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Anthony Xu; Kelven >> Yang; >> >>> >>> Vijayendra Bhamidipati >> >>> >>> Subject: VPC for KVM (was VM router spawning multiple public >> nics) >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> I notice there's also an 'IpAssocVpcCommand', I'm assuming that >> >>> should >> >>> >>> be added to the list? >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Edison Su >> <edison...@citrix.com> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >>> > You can find the VPC reference implementation from >> >>> >>> CitrixResourceBase.java, which is the implementation for >> Xenserver. >> >>> >>> Just take a look at how the VPC related commands are >> implemented. >> >>> >>> > Take SetNetworkACLCommand as an example: >> >>> >>> > The function execute(SetNetworkACLCommand cmd) in >> >>> citrixResourceBase: >> >>> >>> > 1. parse SetNetworkACLCommand >> >>> >>> > 2. call scripts/vm/hypervisor/xenserver/vmops, function >> >>> routerProxy >> >>> >>> > 3. routerproxy will call scripts/network/domr/router_proxy.sh >> >>> >>> > 4. router_proxy.sh will login into router vm, execute a shell >> >>> script >> >>> >>> inside router VM to program rules. >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > In KVM, we can directly call router_proxy.sh or directly >> login >> >>> into >> >>> >>> router vm, we just need to prepare the parameters for this >> script. >> >>> >>> > The reference code is in VirtualRoutingResource.java, all the >> >>> network >> >>> >>> related command(extended from NetworkElementCommand) will be >> >>> redirected >> >>> >>> to VirtualRoutingResource. >> >>> >>> > We can add implementation of >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> SetupGuestNetworkCommand/SetNetworkACLCommand/SetSourceNatCommand/Site2 >> >>> >>> SiteVpnCfgCommand in VirtualRoutingResource. >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> >> -----Original Message----- >> >>> >>> >> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] >> >>> >>> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:34 PM >> >>> >>> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> >>> >>> >> Cc: Edison Su; Anthony Xu; Kelven Yang; Vijayendra >> Bhamidipati >> >>> >>> >> Subject: Re: VM router spawning multiple public nics >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Great, thanks. I've already got a working implementation of >> >>> >>> >> adding/removing nics from regular instances that I've been >> >>> playing >> >>> >>> >> with, so I'm getting vaguely familiar with the various data >> >>> types >> >>> >>> and >> >>> >>> >> things surrounding the networking. I don't know if this is >> quite >> >>> >>> >> within my reach just yet but I'll see how far I get. >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Alena Prokharchyk >> >>> >>> >> <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >> > On 8/29/12 1:34 PM, "Edison Su" <edison...@citrix.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> >>Hi Anthony & Alena, >> >>> >>> >> >> Could you help to provide information about VPC, how it >> >>> works, >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> > Here is the functional spec on the feature: >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> > wiki.cloudstack.org/display/RelOps/Inter- >> >>> >>> VLAN+Routing+functional+spec >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> > VpcVirtualNetworkApplianceManagerImpl is the manager >> >>> responsible >> >>> >>> for >> >>> >>> >> VPC >> >>> >>> >> > Virtual router operations (plug/unplug nics, etc) >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> >> which commands needed to implemented on the hypervisor >> side? >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> > 1) PlugNicCommand/UnplugNicCommand - does Nic >> hotplug/unplug >> >>> >>> >> (currently >> >>> >>> >> > works for VR vm only). In VPC called when add nic for >> >>> Public/Guest >> >>> >>> >> > networks. >> >>> >>> >> > 2) SetupGuestNetworkCommand - sets up dhcp range, dns >> >>> information, >> >>> >>> >> > networkDomain information on the Nic to make it >> >>> >>> >> > 3) SetNetworkACLCommand - creates network ACL on the >> virtual >> >>> >>> router >> >>> >>> >> > 4) SetSourceNatCommand - used for setting source nat on >> the >> >>> Public >> >>> >>> IP >> >>> >>> >> on >> >>> >>> >> > the VPC VR. >> >>> >>> >> > 5) Site2SiteVpnCfgCommand - for setting up S2S VPN >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> > Anthony/Kelven/Vijay did implementation for Xen/vmWare >> >>> resources, >> >>> >>> >> they can >> >>> >>> >> > help you answering all hypervisor related questions. If >> you >> >>> need >> >>> >>> more >> >>> >>> >> > details on business logic + Vpc VR management, I can help >> with >> >>> >>> that. >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> > -Alena. >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> >>> >> >>> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] >> >>> >>> >> >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:16 AM >> >>> >>> >> >>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> >>> >>> >> >>> Subject: Re: VM router spawning multiple public nics >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> I'd be willing to give it a shot if someone could point >> me >> >>> in >> >>> >>> the >> >>> >>> >> >>> right direction and be available to answer questions. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Edison Su >> >>> >>> <edison...@citrix.com> >> >>> >>> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >>> >> >>> > Yah, KVM doesn't support VPC yet. Will you help to add >> VPC >> >>> >>> >> support on >> >>> >>> >> >>> KVM?:) Just implement a few VPC related commands... >> >>> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> -----Original Message----- >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 6:49 AM >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> Subject: Re: VM router spawning multiple public nics >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> I can confirm that the patch has fixed my particular >> >>> issue. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> This is likely unrelated and I think it doesn't even >> use >> >>> the >> >>> >>> >> same >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> code, but I began to play with the VPC stuff a bit >> and >> >>> >>> noticed >> >>> >>> >> that >> >>> >>> >> >>> I >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> don't get any interfaces except for link local. I'd >> >>> probably >> >>> >>> >> chalk >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> that up to it not being ready for KVM, but I thought >> it >> >>> was >> >>> >>> >> worth a >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> mention. I'd be happy to try to help get it ready if >> >>> someone >> >>> >>> >> has >> >>> >>> >> >>> time >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> to nudge me in the right direction. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Edison Su >> >>> >>> >> <edison...@citrix.com> >> >>> >>> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:00 PM >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> Subject: Re: VM router spawning multiple public >> nics >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> I thought about this solution myself, but below >> this >> >>> >>> portion >> >>> >>> >> of >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> code >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> it looks like it uses the hash map to determine >> which >> >>> nic >> >>> >>> >> number >> >>> >>> >> >>> to >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> add the IP to, so with multiple 'untagged' >> networks it >> >>> >>> would >> >>> >>> >> have >> >>> >>> >> >>> no >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> way of knowing which nicnum in the router >> corresponds >> >>> with >> >>> >>> >> the >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> correct >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> untagged vlan. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> nicNum = >> >>> >>> >> vlanAllocatedToVM.get(ip.getVlanId()); >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> networkUsage(routerIp, "addVif", >> "eth" >> >>> + >> >>> >>> >> nicNum); >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> result = >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> _virtRouterResource.assignPublicIpAddress(routerName, >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> routerIp, ip.getPublicIp(), >> >>> >>> >> ip.isAdd(), >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> ip.isFirstIP(), >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> ip.isSourceNat(), >> >>> ip.getVlanId(), >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> ip.getVlanGateway(), >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> ip.getVlanNetmask(), >> >>> >>> >> >>> ip.getVifMacAddress(), >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> ip.getGuestIp(), nicNum); >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> if ip.getVlanId() returns untagged (as it does on >> >>> networks >> >>> >>> >> with >> >>> >>> >> >>> no >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> vlan id), and we tried to put multiple untagged >> keys >> >>> in >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> vlanAllocatedToVM (as with multiple untagged >> networks), >> >>> we >> >>> >>> >> get >> >>> >>> >> >>> the >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> wrong nicNum, no? >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> > In the ipassoc case, if there are multiple untagged >> >>> >>> networks, >> >>> >>> >> all >> >>> >>> >> >>> of >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> them are use the same >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> > Public bridge. Then multiple ip address will be >> added >> >>> on >> >>> >>> eth2 >> >>> >>> >> >>> inside >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> router VM. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> > If it works physically, then it works. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Edison Su >> >>> >>> >> <edison...@citrix.com> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> From: Marcus Sorensen >> [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 1:40 PM >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Subject: Re: VM router spawning multiple public >> >>> nics >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Yes, that looks like it would work for me, >> however >> >>> >>> that's >> >>> >>> >> not >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> something that would ever make it into master, >> >>> right? >> >>> >>> >> >>> Essentially >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> killing tagging for the public, private, and >> guest >> >>> >>> traffic >> >>> >>> >> >>> labels? >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> There's also still the issue of not being able >> to >> >>> >>> >> >>> differentiate >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> between multiple untagged networks, if we >> wanted to >> >>> add >> >>> >>> an >> >>> >>> >> IP >> >>> >>> >> >>> to >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> a >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> router it might not know which untagged >> interface >> >>> to >> >>> >>> apply >> >>> >>> >> it >> >>> >>> >> >>> to. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > Physically, all the "untagged" network will be >> >>> created >> >>> >>> on >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> public/guest/private bridge(the name we put in >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> private/public/guest.bridge.name in >> agent.properties"). >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > Because, there is no way to create a new >> untagged >> >>> bridge >> >>> >>> by >> >>> >>> >> >>> agent >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> itself. Agent code only knows how to create a new >> >>> >>> tagged(vlan) >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> bridge. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > So the fix should be pushed into master. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Edison Su >> >>> >>> >> >>> <edison...@citrix.com> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> From: Marcus Sorensen >> >>> [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:23 PM >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> Subject: Re: VM router spawning multiple >> public >> >>> nics >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> Thanks for pointing me in the right >> direction. >> >>> I've >> >>> >>> >> >>> reviewed >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> this >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> code >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> in a bit more detail, and it seems like it's >> >>> >>> >> accomplishing >> >>> >>> >> >>> the >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> following: >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> 1. get all network interfaces currently >> >>> connected to >> >>> >>> >> the >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> running >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> VM >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> (a.k.a vnet devices via libvirt) >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> 2. find out which vlans these network >> interfaces >> >>> are >> >>> >>> >> >>> bridged >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> to, >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> store >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> this in a hash map of vlan ids and nics >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> 3. get all ip addresses to be added to the >> VM >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> 4. for each ip, get the configured vlan id >> for >> >>> the >> >>> >>> ip, >> >>> >>> >> >>> compare >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> it >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> to >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> the hash map of existing vlan ids and nics >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> 5. if the required vlan id is not found in >> the >> >>> hash >> >>> >>> map, >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> create a >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> new >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> nic >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> 6. assign the ip to the nic identified by >> the >> >>> vlan >> >>> >>> id >> >>> >>> >> key >> >>> >>> >> >>> in >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> the >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> hash >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> map >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> In this case, we're getting a vlan id >> returned >> >>> in >> >>> >>> step >> >>> >>> >> 2 >> >>> >>> >> >>> for a >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> bridged >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> nic whose network is defined as untagged in >> the >> >>> >>> >> cloudstack >> >>> >>> >> >>> db, >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> therefore in step 5 we never match as >> already >> >>> having >> >>> >>> a >> >>> >>> >> nic >> >>> >>> >> >>> for >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> 'untagged'. I wrote a big long response >> >>> discussing >> >>> >>> this >> >>> >>> >> >>> issue, >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> but >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> as >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> I began to dig further I realized that aside >> >>> from my >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> particular >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> case, >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> untagged vlans in general are just broken >> (for >> >>> >>> example >> >>> >>> >> they >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> can't >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> be >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> dealt with uniquely in the current >> >>> IpAssocCommand >> >>> >>> code, >> >>> >>> >> >>> given >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> the >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> hash >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> map) and it would require more effort than I >> >>> have >> >>> >>> time >> >>> >>> >> for >> >>> >>> >> >>> now >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> to >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> make >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> things work. If the code were already in >> place >> >>> to >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> differentiate >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> between multiple untagged nics I think that >> >>> fixing >> >>> >>> my >> >>> >>> >> >>> problem >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> would >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> be >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> trivial, but since its not, I'll just find >> an >> >>> >>> >> alternative >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> solution. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > The untagged network usually means "untagged", >> no >> >>> >>> vlan >> >>> >>> >> on >> >>> >>> >> >>> the >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> bridge... >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > In your case, the untagged network actually >> has >> >>> >>> >> vlan(tagged) >> >>> >>> >> >>> on >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> the >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> bridge, thus getting things confused. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > Will this patch(http://pastebin.com/HJXzZwKp) >> >>> work >> >>> >>> for >> >>> >>> >> you? >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Marcus >> >>> Sorensen >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> <shadow...@gmail.com> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > ... >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > Integer nicPos = 0; >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > for (InterfaceDef nic : nics) >> { >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > if >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> (nic.getBrName().equalsIgnoreCase(_linkLocalBridgeName)) >> >>> >>> >> { >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>> >>> vlanAllocatedToVM.put("LinkLocal", >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> nicPos); >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > } else { >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > String vlanId = >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> getVlanIdFromBridge(nic.getBrName()); >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > if (vlanId != null) { >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>> >>> vlanAllocatedToVM.put(vlanId, >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> nicPos); >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > } else { >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> vlanAllocatedToVM.put(Vlan.UNTAGGED, >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> nicPos); >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > } >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > } >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > nicPos++; >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > } >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > IpAddressTO[] ips = >> >>> >>> cmd.getIpAddresses(); >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > int i = 0; >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > String result = null; >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > int nicNum = 0; >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > for (IpAddressTO ip : ips) { >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > if >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> (!vlanAllocatedToVM.containsKey(ip.getVlanId())) >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> { >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > /* plug a vif into >> router >> >>> */ >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > VifHotPlug(conn, >> >>> routerName, >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> ip.getVlanId(), >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>> ip.getVifMacAddress()); >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>> >>> >> vlanAllocatedToVM.put(ip.getVlanId(), >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> nicPos++); >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > } >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > ... >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > Looks like the getVlanIdFromBridge might >> be a >> >>> bit >> >>> >>> >> >>> misleading. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> I >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> am >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > running my guest public traffic on a >> >>> 'cloudbr470', >> >>> >>> >> which >> >>> >>> >> >>> is >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> a >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> bridge >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > to eth2.470, yet I configured this network >> as >> >>> >>> >> 'untagged' >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> because I >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > have a vlan 470 available on eth3 for >> >>> cloudstack >> >>> >>> to >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> autoassign >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> (eth3 >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > is where all of my stuff will be >> autoassigned). >> >>> So >> >>> >>> >> I'm >> >>> >>> >> >>> not >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> 100% >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> sure >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > yet what's going on here but it seems as >> >>> though >> >>> >>> the >> >>> >>> >> above >> >>> >>> >> >>> is >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> not >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > setting any 'Vlan.UNTAGGED', since it >> finds a >> >>> vlan >> >>> >>> >> number >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> for >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > eth2.470, but when it enumerates the IPs >> for >> >>> the >> >>> >>> >> router, >> >>> >>> >> >>> it >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> then >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> runs >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > ip.getVlanId() and doesn't find a nic for >> the >> >>> >>> >> untagged IP >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> and >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> creates >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > one. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > I realize this is perhaps an uncommon case, >> >>> but a >> >>> >>> bug >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> nonetheless. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > I'll play with the code a bit and see if I >> can >> >>> >>> come >> >>> >>> >> up >> >>> >>> >> >>> with >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> a >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > solution. I'm thinking I can look at the >> nic's >> >>> >>> >> broadcast >> >>> >>> >> >>> URI >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> and >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> see >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > if it's supposed to be untagged, then add >> to >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> vlanAllocatedToVM >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > appropriately, off the top of my head >> >>> something >> >>> >>> like: >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > String vlanId = >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> getVlanIdFromBridge(nic.getBrName()); >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > if (vlanId != null && >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> > !nic.getBroadcastUri().toString().contains("untagged") >> >>> >>> >> { >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>> >>> vlanAllocatedToVM.put(vlanId, >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> nicPos); >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > } else { >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> vlanAllocatedToVM.put(Vlan.UNTAGGED, >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> nicPos); >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > } >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Edison Su >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> <edison...@citrix.com> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> Possible bug in in kvm code: >> >>> >>> >> LibvirtComputingResource- >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >execute(IpAssocCommand cmd)-> VifHotPlug, >> which >> >>> is >> >>> >>> >> only >> >>> >>> >> >>> place >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> adding >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> nic into router vm. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> Turn on agent log, then take a look what >> >>> happened. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> From: Marcus Sorensen >> >>> >>> [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 5:10 PM >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> Subject: VM router spawning multiple >> public >> >>> nics >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> I've got two zones running the same >> build of >> >>> >>> >> cloudstack >> >>> >>> >> >>> (a >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> recent >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> copy >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> of master). One of them creates routers >> that >> >>> >>> turn >> >>> >>> >> into >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> ugly >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> multi-headed beasts, and by that I mean >> that >> >>> any >> >>> >>> >> time I >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> create a >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> port >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> forwarding or iptables rule for that >> router >> >>> I >> >>> >>> get a >> >>> >>> >> new >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> public >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> NIC >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> with an identical IP address, I have an >> >>> instance >> >>> >>> >> with a >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> few >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> tens >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> of >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> NICs. My guess is that some script >> isn't >> >>> >>> detecting >> >>> >>> >> >>> that >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> there's >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> already a NIC with the public IP on it. >> It >> >>> >>> looks >> >>> >>> >> fine >> >>> >>> >> >>> in >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> the >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> database, there is only one public NIC >> >>> defined >> >>> >>> in >> >>> >>> >> the >> >>> >>> >> >>> nics >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> table. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> I'll troubleshoot it tomorrow, but if >> anyone >> >>> >>> knows >> >>> >>> >> >>> where I >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> should >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> begin the headstart would be appreciated. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> Thanks >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> >
