Its important to remember that the definition of a Network in CloudStack is quite purposefully very loose. A network in the simplest terms is just a group of VMs. A guru creates and manages that network. A network is not strictly defined as a union of traffictype/isolationtype/networktype/guesttype. So, for example, there need not be a 1-to-1 mapping between Guru and IsolationType. You should be able to have multiple gurus per any context. That's the theory and vision.
Now the reality is that the current selection logic of the guru in the orchestrator doesn't fully back up that vision because the selection logic too easily allows two Guru's to implement the same network. So I think the current behavior of setupNetwork is flawed. This change, I feel, muddies to a certain degree the definition of a network in CloudStack and attempts to say a network is strict union of traffic/isolation/network/guest-type. If we merge this change, does it hurt anything? No, its more just conceptual disagreement. When I get to the point that I feel setupNetwork is limiting what I want to do, I'll propose a change. Right now, I just accept that its not right in my mind. So I'd have to say I'm neutral on this change. I don't care too much either way as I think down the line this all needs to change. Darren On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Pedro Roque Marques <pedro.r.marq...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Oct 30, 2013, at 11:08 AM, Darren Shepherd <darren.s.sheph...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I definitely don't want the setup to be done at a zone level. > > Why ? That seems to me the most obvious way to do it. > There are different networking solutions: e.g. VLANs and overlays such as > OpenContrail that assume an L3 switching topology. For a deployment one > would tend to choose a solution associated with the physical network. > >> Specifically, I'd like to get rid of the notion of basic and advanced >> zones which would mean that you could be mixing gurus in the same >> zone. If anything, I'd say the simplest would be to just specify the >> Guru in the network offering. > > Basic and advanced zones is rather unhelpful, i agree. But you still can't > Mix Guru's unless they can interoperate... The way for them to interop (i.e. > minimum common denominator) is to connect at L3 in an router between zones. > >> >> I like the work that Hugo has done, but the implications of that >> change are 2 things. First, we only want one guru to match. If that >> is the case, then lets change the NetworkOrchestrator.setupNetwork() >> to just return one network. I have a hard time understanding why you >> would want to return two or more. Even if the guru created two >> networks internally, only one should be return to the caller. There's >> not a good way to invoke setupNetwork() and handle cases where more >> than one network comes back. >> >> Second, we are saying the only way to choose a guru is based on >> networkType/trafficType/guestType/isolationmethods. I think the core >> logic should be more flexible than that. We can first check those 4 >> items, and then if we find more than one guru that matches, use the >> best one (before what I said about adding canHandle to the interface). >> But the check shouldn't be only those four criteria. Hugo's change >> does not strictly enforce that, but it is essentially implied. >> >> After saying all that, if we just put the Guru in the network >> offering. Would that work for everything? That would be a really >> simple and explicit way to configure this all. > > My preference would be for a NetworkManager per zone. > >> >> Darren >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> I agree with Hugo that the current way of ask NetworkGuru to decide itself >>> is not desirable. It makes absolute sense to change that but I wonder why >>> do it through capabilities. Why not just ask the system admin to choose >>> when they setup the zone? When I originally designed NetworkGuru, I >>> figured there's a difference in the L2-L3 technology deployed and the >>> network services (L4-L7) provided on top of it. So I separated out >>> NetworkGuru and NetworkElement. However, I didn't think it's likely that >>> there would be two or three different type of L2-L3 technologies deployed >>> within the same zone. I figured we can leave it to the system admin to >>> just pick which set of NetworkGurus should be deployed in a certain zone >>> and that's good enough. >>> >>> I do think there should be more tie in between the NetworkElements and >>> NetworkGurus. For example, whether a certain NetworkElement can work with >>> the L2-L3 technology deployed. >>> >>> --Alex >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Darren Shepherd [mailto:darren.s.sheph...@gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 10:11 AM >>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Alex Huang; Chiradeep Vittal >>>> Subject: Re: [MERGE] network-guru-orchestration into master >>>> >>>> I don't particular like saying that picking a Guru is based solely on that >>>> criteria. >>>> It should be much looser than that. If the problem you are trying to fix >>>> is two >>>> Gurus implement the same network then we need to set back a bit. I'd like >>>> Alex or Chiradeep to weigh in on this. Currently setupNetwork returns a >>>> list >>>> of networks that were created. I've looked at the code and every single >>>> invocation to setupNetwork expects (and mostly hard code) a response of >>>> one network. >>>> >>>> So for a more proper fix I'd say that the API of setupNetwork should just >>>> return Network. Additionally NetworkGuru should have a >>>> canHandle/canDesign method on the interface that returns a priority/score >>>> (similar to what was just done in the storage strategies). Then the >>>> orchestrator can find the best match and then use the correct guru. Now >>>> the >>>> consolidated logic that you've done should be in a abstract base class that >>>> handles the basic cases of traffic type, network type, etc. >>>> >>>> Darren >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 6:10 AM, Hugo Trippaers <h...@trippaers.nl> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 30 okt. 2013, at 02:09, Darren Shepherd <darren.s.sheph...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> First, I like the idea of consolidating logic. I could see also >>>>>> implementing this as just an abstract base class that handles this >>>>>> common logic. I'm not sure which approach I prefer. Exactly what is >>>>>> the problem that you are trying to solve? Without more details, I'd >>>>>> lean towards implementing this logic in an abstract base class that >>>>>> all NetworkGurus can choose to extend. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Not as much a problem as a design choice. It is my intention to use >>>>> capabilities to select the NetworkGuru instead of asking each network >>>>> guru in turn if it wants to design the network. The idea here is that >>>>> new network gurus only need to supply a list of capabilities to be >>>>> integrated into cloudstack. Like i can handle isolation type X in >>>>> advanced networks for traffic type Guest. The network orchestrator can >>>>> make an informed decision on who to give the task (and warn if there >>>>> is more than one capable) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Darren >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Hugo Trippaers <h...@trippaers.nl> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Hey guys, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is something i had on my wish list for some time. The current way >>>> network gurus are handled is that each guru is asked to design a network >>>> and >>>> will decide by itself to either do it or don't. Most gurus have sane >>>> checks on >>>> which types of networks it can handle, but we have seen issues there in the >>>> past. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With these changes the network orchestrator will check the capabilities >>>> of a guru and based on that ask one or more gurus to design the network. >>>> With this the power is where is should new, the network orchestrator. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This also means that new networking plugins with gurus will have an >>>> easier integration, just list the capabilities. It will also save some >>>> database >>>> calls (once i clean out all canHandle functions) as gurus will have to >>>> lookup >>>> less to decide if they should to their job. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What do you guys think? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Current branch is tested with devcloud in a manual test, so there is >>>>>>> more >>>> work to do there. I wanted to get some opinions while performing more >>>> tests. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hugo >>>>> >
