Hi Allain,
As you suggested, I’m testing the 2 changes together. However I find that the fdb for floatingip can’t be installed on the br-tun of the compute node. Because the network-id in fdb is not in the
LocalVlanManager. The details are below and could you please help review and comment?
The environment: latest DevStack with 1 controller node and 1 compute node
The network topology is below:
Steps:
1.
Create an external network external-net
neutron net-create external-net --router:external True --provider:network_type vxlan
2.
Create a subnet on external-net
neutron subnet-create external-net 192.168.25.0/24 --name external-subnet --allocation-pool start=192.168.25.200,end=192.168.25.250
3.
Create an internal network, create a subnet on net4
neutron net-create net4
neutron subnet-create net4 192.168.2.0/24 --name subnet4
4.
Create a router, set router gateway as external-net, add subnet4 to router
neutron router-create router
neutron router-gateway-set $router-id $external-net-id
neutron router-interface-add $router-id $subnet4-id
5.
Create a VM vm-1 on net4 (vm-1 runs on compute node)
6.
Allocate floating IP FIP-1 on external-net through horizon
7.
Associate FIP-1 with vm-1 through horizon
The fdb is below:
The OVS agent on the compute node receives the FDB:
In OVS agent, LocalVlanManager is used to map tunnel ids or vlan ids to internal vlans:
After OVS agent receiving the FDB, it will try to get LocalVlanMapping from LocalVlanMannager:
However the network-id f2ebf82a-e788-4456-8516-c95b12f91d49 is not in the LocalVlanManager. Thus the fdb can’t be installed on br-tun.
The mapping in the LocalVlanManager in the OVS agent which is on the compute node is below:
Analysis:
The vm-1 is created on internal network net4 . When creating vm-1, a port in the net4 will be bound to vm-1. Thus the network-id can be added to the LocalVlanManager. The network id for floating
IP is used in FDB but the corresponding network is an external network. And this external network’s network id is not in the LocalVlanManager in the OVS agent which is on the compute node.
Best Regard,
Xu, Chenjie
From: Legacy, Allain [mailto:Allain.Legacy@windriver.com]
Sent: Friday, December 7, 2018 10:20 PM
To: Xu, Chenjie <chenjie.xu@intel.com>; Peters, Matt <Matt.Peters@windriver.com>
Cc: starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io
Subject: RE: [Starlingx-discuss] Analysis of patch 9f926a5 for StartlingX upstreaming
The change that is being reviewed here was originally a part of a larger commit (9f926a5d253).
They should be implemented together or at least tested together. I seem to remember that there was information missing in case 1 that prevented a proper FDB notification from being generated.
Please retest your scenarios and capture the input parameters to add_fdb_entries(), remove_fdb_entries(), and update_fdb_entries() in neutron/plugins/ml2/drivers/l2pop/rpc.py:L2populationAgentNotifyAPI
to be sure that expected notifications are published.
Regards,
Allain
Allain Legacy,
Software Developer, Wind River
direct 613.270.2279 fax 613.492.7870 skype allain.legacy
350 Terry Fox Drive, Suite 200, Ottawa, Ontario, K2K 2W5
From: Xu, Chenjie [mailto:chenjie.xu@intel.com]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2018 3:42 AM
To: Peters, Matt
Cc: starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io
Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] Analysis of patch 9f926a5 for StartlingX upstreaming
Hi Matt,
Ryan Tidwell comments on this patch and he thinks that AFTER_DELETE notification can be used to trigger l2pop.
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/611261/
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/611261/4/neutron/db/l3_db.py
From the comment in the following line:
It seems that the router_id and port_id in AFTER_DELETE notification are None. As a result of that, the last_known_router_id and last_fixed_port_id should be used to construct FDB entries which
are used to remove FDBs on each host. However, I print the notification in the following 2 cases:
Case-1:
1)
Allocate floating ip fip-1
2)
Associate fip-1 with vm-1
3)
Delete fip-1
Case-2:
1)
Allocate floating ip fip-1
2)
Associate fip-1 with vm-1
3)
Disassociate fip-1 with vm-1
4)
Delete fip-1
The notification for case1 and case 2 are attached. router_id and port_id are not None in case-1 and are None in case-2. Thus in case-1, AFTER_DELETE notification can be used. In case-2, FDB will
be removed by step 3, thus no need to remove again.
Based on the above analysis, I think we can use AFTER_DELETE notification. Could you please comment and review?
Best Regards,
Xu, Chenjie
From: Peters, Matt [mailto:Matt.Peters@windriver.com]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 11:19 PM
To: Xu, Chenjie <chenjie.xu@intel.com>
Cc: starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io; Legacy, Allain <Allain.Legacy@windriver.com>
Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] Analysis of patch 9f926a5 for StartlingX upstreaming
Hi Chenjie,
The latest RFE looks good to me.
Regards, Matt
From:
"Xu, Chenjie" <chenjie.xu@intel.com>
Date: Monday, November 12, 2018 at 1:23 AM
To: "Peters, Matt" <Matt.Peters@windriver.com>
Cc: "starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io" <starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io>,
Allain Legacy <Allain.Legacy@windriver.com>
Subject: RE: [Starlingx-discuss] Analysis of patch 9f926a5 for StartlingX upstreaming
Hi Matt,
The RFE has been updated and is attached. Could you please help review and comment?
Best Regards,
Xu, Chenjie
From: Peters, Matt [mailto:Matt.Peters@windriver.com]
Sent: Friday, November 9, 2018 9:22 PM
To: Xu, Chenjie <chenjie.xu@intel.com>; Legacy, Allain <Allain.Legacy@windriver.com>
Cc: starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io
Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] Analysis of patch 9f926a5 for StartlingX upstreaming
Hi Chenjie,
The RFE looks good. The use cases are clear and detailed.
I only have a few minor review comments (see attached).
Regards, Matt
From:
"Xu, Chenjie" <chenjie.xu@intel.com>
Date: Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 4:28 AM
To: "Peters, Matt" <Matt.Peters@windriver.com>, Allain Legacy <Allain.Legacy@windriver.com>
Cc: "starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io" <starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io>
Subject: [Starlingx-discuss] Analysis of patch 9f926a5 for StartlingX upstreaming
Hi Matt/Allain,
We analyze the patch 9f926a5 related to l2pop. An RFE “Add l2pop support for floating ip resources” has been written and is attached. The test case is provided by Allain. Could you please help to review and comment? Thanks
very much!
Best Regards,
Xu, Chenjie