Specification for tripleo-lldp-validation blueprint
This spec describes the tripleo-lldp-validation from this blueprint: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tripleo/+spec/tripleo-lldp-validation The feature should gather information from Swift that was gathered during introspection, and present a report of the physical network topology based on LLDP data. This will make deployment troubleshooting easier, and will provide a basis for future automation. Change-Id: I129080d2fee0f08155afecdaf6a94a2e535d536d
This commit is contained in:
Dan Sneddon
parent
c1d2fe214d
commit
d6a8b8f04f
|
|
@ -3,6 +3,13 @@
|
|||
==============================
|
||||
Tripleo Project Specifications
|
||||
==============================
|
||||
Newton Approved Specs:
|
||||
|
||||
.. toctree::
|
||||
:glob:
|
||||
:maxdepth: 1
|
||||
|
||||
specs/newton/*
|
||||
|
||||
Mitaka Approved Specs:
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,229 @@
|
|||
..
|
||||
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
|
||||
License.
|
||||
|
||||
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
|
||||
|
||||
==========================================
|
||||
TripleO LLDP Validation
|
||||
==========================================
|
||||
|
||||
Include the URL of your launchpad blueprint:
|
||||
|
||||
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tripleo/+spec/tripleo-lldp-validation
|
||||
|
||||
The Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP) is a vendor-neutral link layer
|
||||
protocol in the Internet Protocol Suite used by network devices for
|
||||
advertising their identity, capabilities, and neighbors on an
|
||||
IEEE 802 local area network, principally wired Ethernet. [1]
|
||||
|
||||
The Link Layer Discover Protocol (LLDP) helps identify layer 1/2
|
||||
connections between hosts and switches. The switch port, chassis ID,
|
||||
VLANs trunked, and other info is available, for planning or
|
||||
troubleshooting a deployment. For instance, a deployer may validate
|
||||
that the proper VLANs are supplied on a link, or that all hosts
|
||||
are connected to the Provisioning network.
|
||||
|
||||
Problem Description
|
||||
===================
|
||||
|
||||
A detailed description of the problem:
|
||||
|
||||
* Deployment networking is one of the most difficult parts of any
|
||||
OpenStack deployment. A single misconfigured port or loose cable
|
||||
can derail an entire multi-rack deployment.
|
||||
|
||||
* Given the first point, we should work to automate validation and
|
||||
troubleshooting where possible.
|
||||
|
||||
* Work is underway to collect LLDP data in ironic-python-agent,
|
||||
and we have an opportunity to make that data useful [2].
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Proposed Change
|
||||
===============
|
||||
|
||||
Overview
|
||||
--------
|
||||
|
||||
The goal is to expose LLDP data that is collected during
|
||||
introspection, and provide this data in a format that is useful for the
|
||||
deployer. This work depends on the LLDP collection work being done
|
||||
in ironic-python-agent [3].
|
||||
|
||||
There is work being done to implement LLDP data collection for Ironic/
|
||||
Neutron integration. Although this work is primarily focused on features
|
||||
for bare-metal Ironic instances, there will be some overlap with the
|
||||
way TripleO uses Ironic to provision overcloud servers.
|
||||
|
||||
Alternatives
|
||||
------------
|
||||
|
||||
There are many network management utilities that use CDP or LLDP data to
|
||||
validate the physical networking. Some of these are open source, but none
|
||||
are integrated with OpenStack.
|
||||
|
||||
Alternative approaches that do not use LLDP are typically vendor-specific
|
||||
and require specific hardware support. Cumulus has a solution which works
|
||||
with multiple vendors' hardware, but that solution requires running their
|
||||
custom OS on the Ethernet switches.
|
||||
|
||||
Another approach which is common is to perform collection of the switch
|
||||
configurations to a central location, where port configurations can be
|
||||
viewed, or in some cases even altered and remotely pushed. The problem
|
||||
with this approach is that the switch configurations are hardware and
|
||||
vendor-specific, and typically a network engineer is required to read
|
||||
and interpret the configuration. A unified approach that works for all
|
||||
common switch vendors is preferred, along with a unified reporting format.
|
||||
|
||||
Security Impact
|
||||
---------------
|
||||
|
||||
The physical network report provides a roadmap to the underlying network
|
||||
structure. This could prove handy to an attacker who was unaware of the
|
||||
existing topology. On the other hand, the information about physical
|
||||
network topology is less valuable than information about logical topology
|
||||
to an attacker. LLDP contains some information about both physical and
|
||||
logical topology, but the logical topology is limited to VLAN IDs.
|
||||
|
||||
The network topology report should be considered sensitive but not
|
||||
critical. No credentials or shared secrets are revealed in the data
|
||||
collected by ironic-inspector.
|
||||
|
||||
Other End User Impact
|
||||
---------------------
|
||||
|
||||
This report will hopefully reduce the troubleshooting time for nodes
|
||||
with failed network deployments.
|
||||
|
||||
Performance Impact
|
||||
------------------
|
||||
|
||||
If this report is produced as part of the ironic-inspector workflow,
|
||||
then it will increase the time taken to introspect each node by a
|
||||
negligible amount, perhaps a few seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
If this report is called by the operator on demand, it will have
|
||||
no performance impact on other components.
|
||||
|
||||
Other Deployer Impact
|
||||
---------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Deployers may want additional information than the per-node LLDP report.
|
||||
There may be some use in providing aggregate reports, such as the number
|
||||
of nodes with a specific configuration of interfaces and trunked VLANs.
|
||||
This would help to highlight outliers or misconfigured nodes.
|
||||
|
||||
There have been discussions about adding automated switch configuration
|
||||
in TripleO. This would be a mechanism whereby deployers could produce the
|
||||
Ethernet switch configuration with a script based on a configuration
|
||||
template. The deployer would provide specifics like the number of nodes
|
||||
and the configuration per node, and the script would generate the switch
|
||||
configuration to match. In that case, the LLDP collection and analysis
|
||||
would function as a validator for the automatically generated switch
|
||||
port configurations.
|
||||
|
||||
Developer Impact
|
||||
----------------
|
||||
|
||||
The initial work will be to fill in fixed fields such as Chassis ID
|
||||
and switch port. An LLDP packet can contain additional data on a
|
||||
per-vendor basis, however.
|
||||
|
||||
The long-term plan is to store the entire LLDP packet in the
|
||||
metadata. This will have to be parsed out. We may have to work with
|
||||
switch vendors to figure out how to interpret some of the data if
|
||||
we want to make full use of it.
|
||||
|
||||
Implementation
|
||||
==============
|
||||
|
||||
Some notes about implementation:
|
||||
|
||||
* This Python tool will access the introspection data and produce
|
||||
reports on various information such as VLANs per port, host-to-port
|
||||
mapping, and MACs per host.
|
||||
|
||||
* The introspection data can be retrieved with the Ironic API [4] [5].
|
||||
|
||||
* The data will initially be a set of fixed fields which are retrievable
|
||||
in the JSON in the Ironic introspection data. Later, the entire
|
||||
LLDP packet will be stored, and will need to be parsed outisde of the
|
||||
Ironic API.
|
||||
|
||||
* Although the initial implementation can return a human-readable report,
|
||||
other outputs should be available for automation, such as YAML.
|
||||
|
||||
* The tool that produces the LLDP report should be able to return data
|
||||
on a single host, or return all of the data.
|
||||
|
||||
* Some basic support for searching would be a nice feature to have.
|
||||
|
||||
* This data will eventually be used by the GUI to display as a validation
|
||||
step in the deployment workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
Assignee(s)
|
||||
-----------
|
||||
|
||||
Primary assignee:
|
||||
dsneddon <dsneddon@redhat.com>
|
||||
|
||||
Other contributors:
|
||||
bfournie <bfournie@redhat.com>
|
||||
|
||||
Work Items
|
||||
----------
|
||||
|
||||
* Create the Python script to grab introspection data from Swift using
|
||||
the API.
|
||||
|
||||
* Create the Python code to extract the relevant LLDP data from the
|
||||
data JSON.
|
||||
|
||||
* Implement per-node reports
|
||||
|
||||
* Implement aggregate reports
|
||||
|
||||
* Interface with UI developers to give them the data in a form that can
|
||||
be consumed and presented by the TripleO UI.
|
||||
|
||||
* In the future, when the entire LLDP packet is stored, refactor logic
|
||||
to take this into account.
|
||||
|
||||
Testing
|
||||
=======
|
||||
|
||||
Since this is a report that is supposed to benefit the operator, perhaps
|
||||
the best way to include it in CI is to make sure that the report gets
|
||||
logged by the Undercloud. Then the report can be reviewed in the log
|
||||
output from the CI run.
|
||||
|
||||
In fact, this might benefit the TripleO CI process, since hardware issues
|
||||
on the network would be easier to troubleshoot without having access to
|
||||
the bare metal console.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Documentation Impact
|
||||
====================
|
||||
|
||||
Documentation will need to be written to cover making use of the new
|
||||
LLDP reporting tool. This should cover running the tool by hand and
|
||||
interpreting the data.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
References
|
||||
==========
|
||||
* [1] - Wikipedia entry on LLDP:
|
||||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_Layer_Discovery_Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
* [2] - Blueprint for Ironic/Neutron integration:
|
||||
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ironic/+spec/ironic-ml2-integration
|
||||
|
||||
* [3] - Review: Support LLDP data as part of interfaces in inventory
|
||||
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/320584/
|
||||
|
||||
* [4] - Accessing Ironic Introspection Data
|
||||
http://tripleo.org/advanced_deployment/introspection_data.html
|
||||
|
||||
* [5] - Ironic API - Get Introspection Data
|
||||
http://docs.openstack.org/developer/ironic-inspector/http-api.html#get-introspection-data
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue