[pve-devel] proxmox 2018 : add support for "virtual" network and network plugins ?

[Alexandre DERUMIER]

I have look at ovn documentation and gateway

http://openvswitch.org/support/boston2017/1150-ovn-gateways-ipv6.pdf
http://blog.spinhirne.com/2016/09/the-ovn-gateway-router.html

they support both central gateway (no failover yet), or distributed gateway (like vxlan-ebgp).

I think we could create a new daemon (pvenetworkd ?), running on each node,
which manage the snat and nat if the gateway ip is present on the node

with some plugins like

while(1){

if(gatewayip is present) {

 if(plugin->bridge) {
    plugin->bridge->createnat  (iptables ....)
 }
 if(plugin->ovn) {
    plugin->ovn->createnat  ( ovn-nbctl ....)
 }
}

sleep 1;
}





I don't known how to store ip configuration ?

do you want to store them in network config ? (/etc/pve/networks/mynetwork1.cfg for example)
or in vm/ct configuration ? (we already have private ip in CT)

or maybe both ? (store private ip in CT/VM + NAT public-private in network config ?)


we also need ip for dhcp server static configuration with ip-mac, and maybe retrieve ip from dhcp dynamic leases.




----- Mail original -----
De: "Alexandre Derumier" <aderumier at odiso.com>
À: "dietmar" <dietmar at proxmox.com>
Cc: "pve-devel" <pve-devel at pve.proxmox.com>
Envoyé: Jeudi 25 Janvier 2018 16:22:10
Objet: Re: [pve-devel] proxmox 2018 : add support for "virtual" network and network plugins ?

>>I'll try to look at vrrp implementation on linux (I known keepalived, and also [ https://github.com/fredbcode/Vrrpd | https://github.com/fredbcode/Vrrpd ] ). 

>> [ https://github.com/fredbcode/Vrrpd | https://github.com/fredbcode/Vrrpd ] ) 

don't work with bridge interface 

>>keepalived 


works great. 



node1 
----- 

vrrp_instance VI_TEST_1 { 
state BACKUP 
priority 200 
nopreempt 

interface eth0 -> can be the proxmox management ip interface where is send the vrrp packets 
virtual_router_id 255 
advert_int 5 
virtual_ipaddress { 
10.0.1.0/24 brd 10.1.0.255 dev vmbr1v1 scope global -> 1 gateway ip by network 
10.0.2.0/24 brd 10.1.0.255 dev vmbr1v2 scope global 
} 
} 


node2 
----- 

vrrp_instance VI_TEST_1 { 
state BACKUP 
priority 150 
nopreempt 

interface eth0 -> can be the proxmox management ip interface where is send the vrrp packets 
virtual_router_id 255 
advert_int 5 
virtual_ipaddress { 
10.0.1.0/24 brd 10.1.0.255 dev vmbr1v1 scope global -> 1 ip by network 
10.0.2.0/24 brd 10.1.0.255 dev vmbr1v2 scope global 
} 
} 


node3 
----- 

vrrp_instance VI_TEST_1 { 
state BACKUP 
priority 100 
nopreempt 

interface eth0 -> can be the proxmox management ip interface where is send the vrrp packets 
virtual_router_id 255 
advert_int 5 
virtual_ipaddress { 
10.0.1.0/24 brd 10.1.0.255 dev vmbr1v1 scope global -> 1 ip by network 
10.0.2.0/24 brd 10.1.0.255 dev vmbr1v2 scope global 
} 
} 
----- Mail original ----- 
De: "Alexandre Derumier" <aderumier at odiso.com> 
À: "Thomas Lamprecht" <t.lamprecht at proxmox.com> 
Cc: "pve-devel" <pve-devel at pve.proxmox.com> 
Envoyé: Jeudi 25 Janvier 2018 14:35:28 
Objet: Re: [pve-devel] proxmox 2018 : add support for "virtual" network and network plugins ? 

>>IMO its not to complicated, we would need to add a Resource class, 
>>which isn't particularly difficult. 
>>But I also think that Alexandre is right, would be to slow for this. 

I'll try to look at vrrp implementation on linux (I known keepalived, and also https://github.com/fredbcode/Vrrpd). 

For Nat rules, I think that pve-firewall daemon could manage them easily. (simply detect if the gateway ip exist on local node, and create the rules). 
I should be fast. 


----- Mail original ----- 
De: "Thomas Lamprecht" <t.lamprecht at proxmox.com> 
À: "pve-devel" <pve-devel at pve.proxmox.com>, "dietmar" <dietmar at proxmox.com>, "Alexandre Derumier" <aderumier at odiso.com> 
Envoyé: Jeudi 25 Janvier 2018 14:17:37 
Objet: Re: [pve-devel] proxmox 2018 : add support for "virtual" network and network plugins ? 

On 1/25/18 2:04 PM, Dietmar Maurer wrote: 
>> if user need gateway failover, I don't known if it's better to manage it with 
>> proxmox crm (maybe too slow?) 
> 
> I think we should not use/involve the HA stack here (much to complicated). 
> 

IMO its not to complicated, we would need to add a Resource class, 
which isn't particularly difficult. 
But I also think that Alexandre is right, would be to slow for this. 

_______________________________________________ 
pve-devel mailing list 
pve-devel at pve.proxmox.com 
https://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel 

_______________________________________________ 
pve-devel mailing list 
pve-devel at pve.proxmox.com 
https://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel