Update patch set 7
Patch Set 7:
(4 comments)
Patch-set: 7
Attention: {"person_ident":"Gerrit User 11604 \u003c11604@4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543\u003e","operation":"ADD","reason":"\u003cGERRIT_ACCOUNT_16688\u003e replied on the change"}
Attention: {"person_ident":"Gerrit User 16688 \u003c16688@4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543\u003e","operation":"REMOVE","reason":"\u003cGERRIT_ACCOUNT_16688\u003e replied on the change"}
Attention: {"person_ident":"Gerrit User 15554 \u003c15554@4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543\u003e","operation":"ADD","reason":"\u003cGERRIT_ACCOUNT_16688\u003e replied on the change"}
This commit is contained in:
Gerrit User 16688
Gerrit Code Review
parent
041402c845
commit
d0db798ddf
|
|
@ -69,6 +69,24 @@
|
|||
"revId": "7fdc74b912aa683acb27532c45a09c93dcf38a4a",
|
||||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"unresolved": false,
|
||||
"key": {
|
||||
"uuid": "47a04b4b_bc1acc08",
|
||||
"filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
|
||||
"patchSetId": 7
|
||||
},
|
||||
"lineNbr": 52,
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"id": 16688
|
||||
},
|
||||
"writtenOn": "2022-11-11T12:41:34Z",
|
||||
"side": 1,
|
||||
"message": "1) Good question. I\u0027ll add this comment to the spec. This is the suffix of the RP name. You can see an example in the output of \"$ openstack resource provider list\" L93. The host and agent type will be added by the mech driver (actually the placement extension of this driver). It will be the same as with other bridges.\n\n2) I need this configuration option being readable from the OVS agent and the mech driver. This is why I\u0027m placing it in the [ml2] section, instead of the specific agent section.\n\nWhy shouldn\u0027t have a default value? If you don\u0027t add it to the \"resource_provider_bandwidths\" config list, it won\u0027t matter the default value defined in \"tunnelled_network_rp_name\". The trigger for the reshape should be the presence of ports on those networks AND the enablement of those tunnelled network in a specific host/agent.\n\nWhat we are doing here is not a RP reshaping, we are creating a new one.\n\nAnd in any case, I\u0027m not going to consider the case of having pre-existing ports with min-bw rules, I\u0027ll let this out of scope until there is a clear process to execute it.",
|
||||
"parentUuid": "bebb4016_8ac1e4db",
|
||||
"revId": "7fdc74b912aa683acb27532c45a09c93dcf38a4a",
|
||||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"unresolved": true,
|
||||
"key": {
|
||||
|
|
@ -92,6 +110,30 @@
|
|||
"revId": "7fdc74b912aa683acb27532c45a09c93dcf38a4a",
|
||||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"unresolved": false,
|
||||
"key": {
|
||||
"uuid": "920651f9_9a503c53",
|
||||
"filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
|
||||
"patchSetId": 7
|
||||
},
|
||||
"lineNbr": 105,
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"id": 16688
|
||||
},
|
||||
"writtenOn": "2022-11-11T12:41:34Z",
|
||||
"side": 1,
|
||||
"message": "I\u0027ll push a patch for os-traits with this name.",
|
||||
"parentUuid": "71ed07ea_e8e4ab6c",
|
||||
"range": {
|
||||
"startLine": 105,
|
||||
"startChar": 1,
|
||||
"endLine": 105,
|
||||
"endChar": 27
|
||||
},
|
||||
"revId": "7fdc74b912aa683acb27532c45a09c93dcf38a4a",
|
||||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"unresolved": true,
|
||||
"key": {
|
||||
|
|
@ -115,6 +157,30 @@
|
|||
"revId": "7fdc74b912aa683acb27532c45a09c93dcf38a4a",
|
||||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"unresolved": false,
|
||||
"key": {
|
||||
"uuid": "ad125800_8d36285e",
|
||||
"filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
|
||||
"patchSetId": 7
|
||||
},
|
||||
"lineNbr": 119,
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"id": 16688
|
||||
},
|
||||
"writtenOn": "2022-11-11T12:41:34Z",
|
||||
"side": 1,
|
||||
"message": "This is not what we want to model with the RP traits. Each resource provider will have a list of VNIC types and the corresponding physical bridge or the tunnelled networks trait. It is out of scope to define the network type in the trait list.\n\nIf, in future features, we need to schedule by network type, we\u0027ll add it.",
|
||||
"parentUuid": "69a16c4f_9ff7de11",
|
||||
"range": {
|
||||
"startLine": 113,
|
||||
"startChar": 3,
|
||||
"endLine": 119,
|
||||
"endChar": 35
|
||||
},
|
||||
"revId": "7fdc74b912aa683acb27532c45a09c93dcf38a4a",
|
||||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"unresolved": true,
|
||||
"key": {
|
||||
|
|
@ -162,6 +228,30 @@
|
|||
"revId": "7fdc74b912aa683acb27532c45a09c93dcf38a4a",
|
||||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"unresolved": false,
|
||||
"key": {
|
||||
"uuid": "6aae2eed_3298ecca",
|
||||
"filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
|
||||
"patchSetId": 7
|
||||
},
|
||||
"lineNbr": 147,
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"id": 16688
|
||||
},
|
||||
"writtenOn": "2022-11-11T12:41:34Z",
|
||||
"side": 1,
|
||||
"message": "Bence, we can have a single inventory from one RP, of course. And we can place allocations from different requests. But let\u0027s keep to the current architecture: one RP for one physical bridge (this is what we have now). This spec is not considering sharing the RP inventory of a physical network with a tunnelled one.\n\nSean, we have discussed this several times. Placement API has no way to model a physical resource with two RP and share the inventory.\n\nWhat we decided in Neutron is to make a 1:1 assignation between a network and it\u0027s physical bridge. This is why currently we only support physical backed networks in Neutron.\n\n\"i do not think we shoudl implemnte this feature without supproting this configuration.\" That means we should also provide the ability of model one RP shared between two physical networks (without even considering adding the support for tunnelled networks). I would say it again: in Neutron we do a 1:1 between networks and physical devices (model as physical bridges, both in ML2/OVN and ML2/OVS). This RFE is extending this support for tunnelled network, considering that this traffic will go through the \"local_ip\", assigned to an independent network interface.\n\nIn other words, this spec is not considering creating a RP shared between two networks. Each RP will have a 1:1 match with a physical network or the \"local_ip\" interface. Each RP will have its own inventory. The case you are describing is a corner case, when the \"local_ip\" is using the same interface of a physical bridge.",
|
||||
"parentUuid": "f1a41120_b46f0f38",
|
||||
"range": {
|
||||
"startLine": 146,
|
||||
"startChar": 31,
|
||||
"endLine": 147,
|
||||
"endChar": 44
|
||||
},
|
||||
"revId": "7fdc74b912aa683acb27532c45a09c93dcf38a4a",
|
||||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"unresolved": true,
|
||||
"key": {
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue