[pve-devel] rfc : pve-network : idea to generate and reload config accross the nodes

[Alexandre DERUMIER]

> What do you mean by locally assigned ? manually with ip command ? 
> because it's be overwritten by network service restart/reload. (if the interface is define in /etc/network/interfaces) 

>>So you are sure that ifupdown2 can verify a network config on a remote node? 

I don't think we can be sure at 100%.  (For example, it don't see ovs).

and I think that the dry-run feature is not 100% complete. 
(That's why in current ifupdown2 network reload api, I simply catch errors on reload for each interface, and revert only non-applied changes to /etc/network/interfaces.new).

other command,  ifquery -a, only display running configuration, but from the ifupdown2 cache. So manual setup with ip command are not seen.




>>Thats sounds reasonable. 
>>
>>Maybe we can use the broadcast_rrd() code to distribute vnet/transport status among cluster nodes? 
yes. like for storage.




----- Mail original -----
De: "dietmar" <dietmar at proxmox.com>
À: "aderumier" <aderumier at odiso.com>
Cc: "pve-devel" <pve-devel at pve.proxmox.com>
Envoyé: Jeudi 4 Avril 2019 09:36:12
Objet: Re: [pve-devel] rfc : pve-network : idea to generate and reload config accross the nodes

> >>or locally assigned ip addresses or routes. A copy of /etc/network/interfaces does not >>provide all necessary information. 
> 
> What do you mean by locally assigned ? manually with ip command ? 
> because it's be overwritten by network service restart/reload. (if the interface is define in /etc/network/interfaces) 

So you are sure that ifupdown2 can verify a network config on a remote node? 

> > I was thinking about diplaying transport/vnets in main tree (like storage), and display error on it. 
> > 
> >>You mix different things here. The configuration is cluster wide (for all nodes). Opposed to that, vnet status is per node. 
> >> 
> >>We have the same thing with storages, so maybe we can implement it the same way? Simply display vnet status in the left tree (like we do for storage status)? 
> >> 
> >> (maybe with compare the running local network config and what is defined in /etc/pve/network/ ). (for presentation, maybe like a storage with volumes, we could have a >>transport with vnets). Not sure it's a good idea ? 
> >> 
> >>Sorry, I do not really understand that suggestion? 
> 
> I mean, it's indeed like for storage, but we could have a lots of vnets. (for example, I'm using around 150 differents vlans in production) 
> As the vnets are alwary associated to 1 transport, my idea was to only display transports in the main tree (on each node), and then when you click an transport, you display in the 
> right panel, the list of vnets. (to compare with storage, a transport = storage, and when you click on storage, you 

Thats sounds reasonable. 

Maybe we can use the broadcast_rrd() code to distribute vnet/transport status among cluster nodes?