Some thoughts inline. Salvatore
On 11 March 2016 at 23:15, Carl Baldwin <c...@ecbaldwin.net> wrote: > Hi, > > I have started to get into coding [1] for the Neutron routed networks > specification [2]. > > This spec proposes a new association between network segments and > subnets. This affects how IPAM needs to work because until we know > where the port is going to land, we cannot allocate an IP address for > it. Also, IPAM will need to somehow be aware of segments. We have > proposed a host / segment mapping which could be transformed to a host > / subnet mapping for IPAM purposes. > > I wanted to get the opinion of folks like Salvatore, John Belamaric, > and you (if you interested) on this. How will this affect the > interface to pluggable IPAM and how can pluggable implementations can > accommodate this change. Obviously, we wouldn't require > implementations to support it but routed networks wouldn't be very > useful without it. So, those implementations would not be compatible > when routed networks are deployed. > I think it is ok to augment the IPAM interface. As any API, it needs to evolve. I don't think we have a story for its versioning; therefore I reckon that the simplest way to achieve this would be adding a new method for segment-aware IPAM, that only drivers supporting routing networks will be required to implement. > > Another related topic was brought up in the recent Neutron mid-cycle. > We talked about adding a service type attribute to to subnets. The > reason for this change is to allow operators to create special subnets > on a network to be used only by certain kinds of ports. For example, > DVR fip namespace gateway ports burn a public IP for no good reason. > This new feature would allow operators to create a special subnet in > the network with private addressing only to be used by these ports. > > Another example would give operators the ability to use private > subnets for router external gateway ports if shared SNAT is not needed > or doesn't need to use public IPs. > > These are two ways in which subnets are taking on extra > characteristics which distinguish them from other subnets on the same > network. That is why I lumped them together in to one thread. > I wonder if we could satisfy this requirement with tags - as it seems these subnets are anyway operator-owned you should probably not worry about regular tenants fiddling with them, and therefore the "helper" subnet needed for the fip namespace could just be tagged to the purpose. > > Carl > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 >
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
