OPNET-763: NMState Opt-In for br-ex#1963
Conversation
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
jira/valid-reference
|
@cybertron: This pull request references OPNET-763 which is a valid jira issue. Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the epic to target the "4.22.0" version, but no target version was set. DetailsIn response to this: Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
@cybertron: all tests passed! Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. DetailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
openshift-ci
bot
requested review from
emy,
everettraven,
mkowalski,
rbbratta and
zaneb
| Because this feature is delivered using the same mechanism (MCO) as the | ||
| existing configure-ovs script, it should work the same way. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we have any documentation as to how this works today on HyperShift? IIRC the MCO doesn't work the same way on HyperShift as it does on standalone clusters so making sure that there isn't something special we need to do to make sure HyperShift is configuring things correctly would be good.
@yuqi-zhang and/or @sjenning probably have a better handle of the nuances here than I do.
| We also anticipate having a bridgeTopology for balance-slb bonds, which is | ||
| structurally different from a standard br-ex configuration and can't easily | ||
| be handled in the same policy. There is an existing feature in configure-ovs | ||
| that creates a br-ex1 too, so at some point we will need to support that as | ||
| well. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Any chance we can document what the future behavior we anticipate needing is a bit more clearly for those unfamiliar with this space?
As an API reviewer with less context in this space, having an understanding of what we may need to account for in the future helps influence the API structure and ensuring we have good extensibility paths.
| Some users may already have existing full NMState br-ex configs that they would | ||
| like to keep using. This is possible because we are not removing the old | ||
| feature, but it also doesn't improve the old, bad, interface. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just to make sure I'm following along, this feature is meant to be an "easy button" for configuring NMState br-ex with some set of default values. For those that have custom configurations they would like to apply they continue to use the existing configure-ovs script instead of this feature?
Do you envision a future where the install config is a complete replacement of the configure-ovs script?
If a cluster uses this feature and later decides they need more nuanced configuration, what is their path to doing so?
|
This seems consistent with what we previously discussed 👍 |
4 participants
No description provided.