openstack
/
neutron-specs
Code Issues Proposed changes
neutron-specs/09ee72205f522b16261a4ae919e...

418 lines
17 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Blame History

{
"comments": [
{
"unresolved": false,
"key": {
"uuid": "74c4ae07_39b0c3e3",
"filename": "/PATCHSET_LEVEL",
"patchSetId": 6
},
"lineNbr": 0,
"author": {
"id": 16688
},
"writtenOn": "2022-11-04T12:28:44Z",
"side": 1,
"message": "New PS to be submitted",
"revId": "09ee72205f522b16261a4ae919e03511386c0e9d",
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
},
{
"unresolved": false,
"key": {
"uuid": "2957f3a4_b5a9c3d9",
"filename": "/PATCHSET_LEVEL",
"patchSetId": 6
},
"lineNbr": 0,
"author": {
"id": 11604
},
"writtenOn": "2022-11-04T12:40:32Z",
"side": 1,
"message": "ack ill re reivew again later.",
"parentUuid": "74c4ae07_39b0c3e3",
"revId": "09ee72205f522b16261a4ae919e03511386c0e9d",
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
},
{
"unresolved": true,
"key": {
"uuid": "2755bbe9_1f98485e",
"filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
"patchSetId": 6
},
"lineNbr": 50,
"author": {
"id": 15554
},
"writtenOn": "2022-11-04T10:00:52Z",
"side": 1,
"message": "It may open up some options if we used something informative here (but with a syntax that makes it possible to tell it\u0027s not simply a bridge name), like:\n\nIFACE/LOCAL_IP, e.g.: br-ex/1.2.3.4, or\nIFACE/tunneled, e.g.: br-ex/tunneled\n\nAnd then we could detect for example the case when a physnet and a tunnel vtep uses the same physical interface.",
"range": {
"startLine": 50,
"startChar": 62,
"endLine": 50,
"endChar": 74
},
"revId": "09ee72205f522b16261a4ae919e03511386c0e9d",
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
},
{
"unresolved": true,
"key": {
"uuid": "3c583fa4_9d3f70d8",
"filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
"patchSetId": 6
},
"lineNbr": 50,
"author": {
"id": 11604
},
"writtenOn": "2022-11-04T10:09:11Z",
"side": 1,
"message": "i orginaly comment on this in an olde revsion but i ill copy it here too\n\n\n\"\"\"\nin stead of this i woudl do the following\n\nadd a new config option called tunnel_bandwidth_provider\n\nif you have a singel shared interface\n[ovs]\ntunnel_bandwidth_provider \u003d br0\nresource_provider_bandwidths \u003d br0:EGRESS:INGRESS\n\nif you have a dedicated interface you can do \n\n[ovs]\ntunnel_bandwidth_provider \u003d br1\nresource_provider_bandwidths \u003d br0:EGRESS:INGRESS,br1:EGRESS:INGRESS\n\nthe tunnel_bandwidth_provider must be the key in one of the resource_provider_bandwidths pairs.\n\ntunnel_bandwidth_provider shoudl default to None/unset\nwhen set the bandwidth provider refenced in tunnel_bandwidth_provider will have the new CUSTOM_TUNNELLED_NETWORKS reproted for that inventory.\n\nthat will allow us ot have a shared or split inventory.\n\"\"\"\n\nim not sure i like the idea of makeing resource_provider_bandwidths more complicated by allowing\n\nresource_provider_bandwidths \u003d br-ex/tunneled:EGRESS:INGRESS\n\nif that is what you were suggesting?",
"parentUuid": "2755bbe9_1f98485e",
"range": {
"startLine": 50,
"startChar": 62,
"endLine": 50,
"endChar": 74
},
"revId": "09ee72205f522b16261a4ae919e03511386c0e9d",
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
},
{
"unresolved": false,
"key": {
"uuid": "cf72051d_f18608c1",
"filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
"patchSetId": 6
},
"lineNbr": 50,
"author": {
"id": 16688
},
"writtenOn": "2022-11-04T10:23:55Z",
"side": 1,
"message": "As commented, I\u0027m proposing a config option [1] to define the RP name.\n\n[1]https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron/+/860639/8/neutron/conf/plugins/ml2/config.py",
"parentUuid": "3c583fa4_9d3f70d8",
"range": {
"startLine": 50,
"startChar": 62,
"endLine": 50,
"endChar": 74
},
"revId": "09ee72205f522b16261a4ae919e03511386c0e9d",
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
},
{
"unresolved": true,
"key": {
"uuid": "a2360ca4_ee52eabc",
"filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
"patchSetId": 6
},
"lineNbr": 50,
"author": {
"id": 11604
},
"writtenOn": "2022-11-04T12:19:23Z",
"side": 1,
"message": "so am i correct in understandign that if i want to use br0 for physnet0 and tunneled traffic you are suggesting setting \n\n```\n[ml2]\ntunnelled_network_rp_name\u003dbr0\n\n[ovs]\nbridge_mappings \u003d physnet0:br0\nresource_provider_bandwidths \u003d br0:EGRESS:INGRESS\n```\n\nif so that is baseically the same as i was suggesting above \n\ntunnel_bandwidth_provider is basically the same as your tunnelled_network_rp_name\n\n\nif my example above will work and allow physnet0 and the tunneled netowks to share a singel rp then this should be viable\n\ncan we add this exampel explcitly to ensure that we test this and not just the usecase where the tunnels use a spereate independent inventory.",
"parentUuid": "cf72051d_f18608c1",
"range": {
"startLine": 50,
"startChar": 62,
"endLine": 50,
"endChar": 74
},
"revId": "09ee72205f522b16261a4ae919e03511386c0e9d",
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
},
{
"unresolved": false,
"key": {
"uuid": "3db2dbbc_ece0f506",
"filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
"patchSetId": 6
},
"lineNbr": 50,
"author": {
"id": 16688
},
"writtenOn": "2022-11-04T12:28:44Z",
"side": 1,
"message": "Right, I\u0027m also introducing a new config var. I\u0027ll provide this info in the spec.",
"parentUuid": "a2360ca4_ee52eabc",
"range": {
"startLine": 50,
"startChar": 62,
"endLine": 50,
"endChar": 74
},
"revId": "09ee72205f522b16261a4ae919e03511386c0e9d",
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
},
{
"unresolved": false,
"key": {
"uuid": "dfcac144_378fef32",
"filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
"patchSetId": 6
},
"lineNbr": 50,
"author": {
"id": 15554
},
"writtenOn": "2022-11-04T12:40:41Z",
"side": 1,
"message": "It sounds like this can express the same - when the rp/physical nic is shared between a physnet and the tunneled networks. And it is syntactically simpler than what I proposed. So +1 from me for this part.",
"parentUuid": "3db2dbbc_ece0f506",
"range": {
"startLine": 50,
"startChar": 62,
"endLine": 50,
"endChar": 74
},
"revId": "09ee72205f522b16261a4ae919e03511386c0e9d",
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
},
{
"unresolved": true,
"key": {
"uuid": "86c885c8_38338533",
"filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
"patchSetId": 6
},
"lineNbr": 77,
"author": {
"id": 15554
},
"writtenOn": "2022-11-04T10:00:52Z",
"side": 1,
"message": "I don\u0027t understand this sentence. Can you please explain?",
"range": {
"startLine": 76,
"startChar": 0,
"endLine": 77,
"endChar": 53
},
"revId": "09ee72205f522b16261a4ae919e03511386c0e9d",
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
},
{
"unresolved": false,
"key": {
"uuid": "feaa4fee_b46db5dd",
"filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
"patchSetId": 6
},
"lineNbr": 77,
"author": {
"id": 16688
},
"writtenOn": "2022-11-04T10:23:55Z",
"side": 1,
"message": "In OVN we need to provide the tunnelled RP host assignation. That means:\n resource_provider_hypervisors\u003dbr-ex:u20ovn;rp_tunnelled:u20ovn\"\n \nWhen the OVN mech driver receives the \"open_vswitch\" register event, it can associate this RP with the host and create the corresponding RP tree.",
"parentUuid": "86c885c8_38338533",
"range": {
"startLine": 76,
"startChar": 0,
"endLine": 77,
"endChar": 53
},
"revId": "09ee72205f522b16261a4ae919e03511386c0e9d",
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
},
{
"unresolved": false,
"key": {
"uuid": "bbcd247d_49b33332",
"filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
"patchSetId": 6
},
"lineNbr": 77,
"author": {
"id": 15554
},
"writtenOn": "2022-11-04T12:40:41Z",
"side": 1,
"message": "I hope I\u0027m starting to get it. Thanks.",
"parentUuid": "feaa4fee_b46db5dd",
"range": {
"startLine": 76,
"startChar": 0,
"endLine": 77,
"endChar": 53
},
"revId": "09ee72205f522b16261a4ae919e03511386c0e9d",
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
},
{
"unresolved": true,
"key": {
"uuid": "5762cd5a_f91d3267",
"filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
"patchSetId": 6
},
"lineNbr": 99,
"author": {
"id": 11604
},
"writtenOn": "2022-11-04T12:38:33Z",
"side": 1,
"message": "this does not line up with the tabel by the way.\n\ni also prefer this name to what you have in the table and in the example below.\n\nif we stick withthe CUSTOM_ prefix can we just use this trait instead of \nCUSTOM_TUNNELLED_RP_TUNNELLED",
"range": {
"startLine": 99,
"startChar": 1,
"endLine": 99,
"endChar": 26
},
"revId": "09ee72205f522b16261a4ae919e03511386c0e9d",
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
},
{
"unresolved": true,
"key": {
"uuid": "676e4dd7_b58a9a08",
"filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
"patchSetId": 6
},
"lineNbr": 165,
"author": {
"id": 11604
},
"writtenOn": "2022-11-04T12:38:33Z",
"side": 1,
"message": "your going to have to reshape the placment allocation or nova will for any existing port that have a minbandwith qos rule applied to a tunneled port.\n\nthat will be non trivial.",
"revId": "09ee72205f522b16261a4ae919e03511386c0e9d",
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
},
{
"unresolved": true,
"key": {
"uuid": "217bf906_b20c05df",
"filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
"patchSetId": 6
},
"lineNbr": 165,
"author": {
"id": 16688
},
"writtenOn": "2022-11-07T12:33:59Z",
"side": 1,
"message": "Nova doesn\u0027t do this for an existing port, Neutron does.",
"parentUuid": "676e4dd7_b58a9a08",
"revId": "09ee72205f522b16261a4ae919e03511386c0e9d",
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
},
{
"unresolved": true,
"key": {
"uuid": "151d6e60_26040d44",
"filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
"patchSetId": 6
},
"lineNbr": 165,
"author": {
"id": 11604
},
"writtenOn": "2022-11-07T14:56:27Z",
"side": 1,
"message": "nova does create the allcoations for all port resouce requests.\n\nneutron only manges the invetories/resouce providers which tracks capasity not usage.\n\nusage is track by the allocation which nova creates.",
"parentUuid": "217bf906_b20c05df",
"revId": "09ee72205f522b16261a4ae919e03511386c0e9d",
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
},
{
"unresolved": false,
"key": {
"uuid": "15a04950_bbc0d111",
"filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
"patchSetId": 6
},
"lineNbr": 165,
"author": {
"id": 16688
},
"writtenOn": "2022-11-07T17:41:26Z",
"side": 1,
"message": "Ok, I\u0027m not going to fix what is not broken. What I\u0027ll propose is a tool that will inform about the ports that have QoS min-bw rules in overlay networks. If those ports are on hosts with an overlay network with a new RP, then we\u0027ll inform about this. Unless we have a tool to sync/heal an existing deployment, any port created before this new feature won\u0027t have an allocation.",
"parentUuid": "151d6e60_26040d44",
"revId": "09ee72205f522b16261a4ae919e03511386c0e9d",
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
},
{
"unresolved": true,
"key": {
"uuid": "1c7908f5_a5c4455e",
"filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
"patchSetId": 6
},
"lineNbr": 180,
"author": {
"id": 11604
},
"writtenOn": "2022-11-04T12:38:33Z",
"side": 1,
"message": "i think your are mixing ups how placemnt is ment to work\n\ninventories track total avalaibel capastyity and have a reserved value.\nthe reserved value tracks capatiy that is reserved for non openstack usage.\n\nthe consumtion of the resouces i.e. the usage is compute form the allcoations against the inventoies.\n\nso how this need to work is the reshape api need to be used to reshape the allocation when this feature is enabled.\n\nthat reshape will likely need to be done by nova.\nit may be possibel to do it form neutron but we need to ensure that nova will generate the same allocations if we migrate or run the heall allcoations comand.",
"revId": "09ee72205f522b16261a4ae919e03511386c0e9d",
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
},
{
"unresolved": true,
"key": {
"uuid": "11840e74_ce293de3",
"filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
"patchSetId": 6
},
"lineNbr": 180,
"author": {
"id": 16688
},
"writtenOn": "2022-11-07T12:33:59Z",
"side": 1,
"message": "I never mentioned \"reserved\" value. I\u0027m talking about the \"used\" value. If we send a request to update the \"used\" value beyond the \"total\" value, that request will fail. This is what I\u0027ll log.\n\nWhat I\u0027m saying here is that once this feature is enabled, we\u0027ll need to recalculate the RP inventories for existing ports, and only if those ports have QoS policies with min-bw rules. In OVS this is not possible now for ports in overlay networks. OVN feature is too recent and most probably won\u0027t hit too many occurrences.\n\nWhy from Nova? Nova does not store this information. Nova is just a proxy for Placement. I don\u0027t see why Nova should handle this.",
"parentUuid": "1c7908f5_a5c4455e",
"revId": "09ee72205f522b16261a4ae919e03511386c0e9d",
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
},
{
"unresolved": true,
"key": {
"uuid": "81fbd140_206b81eb",
"filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
"patchSetId": 6
},
"lineNbr": 180,
"author": {
"id": 11604
},
"writtenOn": "2022-11-07T14:56:27Z",
"side": 1,
"message": "there is no used value in placment.\n\nwhen you get the usage for a resouce provide we calualte it by adding up all the allocations for a resouce porvider.\n\nwe have a long standing know issue for how neutorn is currently mangaing the inventoies.\n\nonly nova should be modifying the allocations because the neutron port request are part of the allocation for the entire vm. nova merges the request form the flavor, neutron and cybrog into a sincel allcoation for the entire vm.\n\nso neutron cannot modify that unles nova agree with it. for nova to agree with it the port requests in the port would have to be correct so that if we move a vm or schedule a new vm the accounting is in sync.",
"parentUuid": "11840e74_ce293de3",
"revId": "09ee72205f522b16261a4ae919e03511386c0e9d",
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
},
{
"unresolved": false,
"key": {
"uuid": "63509a3e_889e8842",
"filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
"patchSetId": 6
},
"lineNbr": 180,
"author": {
"id": 16688
},
"writtenOn": "2022-11-07T17:41:26Z",
"side": 1,
"message": "\"we have a long standing know issue for how neutorn is currently mangaing the inventoies.\" What is this issue? From Neutron we currently can update the inventory of a RP when the port QoS change. If that is no allowed, please open a bug for Neutron and we\u0027ll discuss about how to change this.",
"parentUuid": "81fbd140_206b81eb",
"revId": "09ee72205f522b16261a4ae919e03511386c0e9d",
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
}
]
}
View Git Blame Copy Permalink