Reviewed: https://review.openstack.org/254439
Committed:
https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/neutron/commit/?id=6185a09d130edb7a21e21a354b3fa12fcbebe8a6
Submitter: Jenkins
Branch: master
commit 6185a09d130edb7a21e21a354b3fa12fcbebe8a6
Author: Swaminathan Vasudevan <swaminathan.vasude...@hpe.com>
Date: Fri Dec 4 16:44:44 2015 -0800
DVR: Handle unbound allowed_address_pair port with FIP
If an allowed_address_pair port associated with a FloatingIP
is configured to a service_port, the allowed_address_pair port
should inherit the service_ports host binding and device
owner if device_owner is not configured.
Hence the DVR will be able to deploy the FloatingIP for
the provided allowed_address_pair.
In this case if the associated port's admin state changes,
the allowed_address_pairs device_owner and host binding will
be reverted back to None.
When associated service port is deleted the allowed_address_
pairs device_owner and host binding will be reverted as well.
Change-Id: I32b8d3e85a8e12fc146c419766596fcfb61f32f6
Closes-Bug: #1445255
** Changed in: neutron
Status: In Progress => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Yahoo!
Engineering Team, which is subscribed to neutron.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1445255
Title:
DVR FloatingIP to unbound allowed_address_pairs does not work
Status in neutron:
Fix Released
Bug description:
I was trying to follow Aaron's guide here: http://blog.aaronorosen.com
/implementing-high-availability-instances-with-neutron-using-vrrp/
VRRP is working fine, but with DVR enabled there is no way to get a
floatingIP address working with a vIP.
There has been a discussion about this on #openstack-neutron on the
16th of April 2015:
[23:49:26] <kevinbenton> dguerri was trying to follow Aaron's guide
here:
http://blog.aaronorosen.com/implementing-high-availability-instances-with-neutron-using-vrrp/
[23:49:35] <kevinbenton> and it doesn't work with DVR
[23:50:49] <armax> kevinbenton: ok, but are we sure that’s because of an
unbound port?
[23:51:37] <kevinbenton> armax: seems to be
[23:51:56] <kevinbenton> armax: no l3 agent will respond to an ARP
request for the floating IP when i try it
[23:52:57] <armax> kevinbenton: ok, now I am with you
[23:53:53] <armax> kevinbenton: in aaron’s case the fip is associated to
an unbound port
[23:54:05] <armax> kevinbenton: and yet routing works fine
[23:55:18] <armax> kevinbenton: I don’t think taht for such scenario DVR
makes much sense
[23:55:48] <armax> kevinbenton: because if we allowed to have teh FIP
namespace to land on the dvr_snat agent
[23:56:02] <armax> kevinbenton: you’re basically back to central routing
[23:56:07] <kevinbenton> armax: right
[23:56:11] <armax> kevinbenton: am I making any sense?
[23:56:29] <armax> kevinbenton: I am not saying that lack of VRRP support
is nice
[23:56:37] <armax> kevinbenton: I am tryign to wrap my head around this
[23:56:49] <kevinbenton> armax: i was thinking maybe there was some
fallback logic where the SNAT one would host a floating IP if there wasn't
another l3 agent that could handle it
[23:57:16] <kevinbenton> armax: for example if one of the compute nodes
wasn't running the l3 agent
[23:57:35] <kevinbenton> armax: it would be the same scenario
[23:57:37] <kevinbenton> armax: right?
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1445255/+subscriptions
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yahoo-eng-team
Post to : yahoo-eng-team@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yahoo-eng-team
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
