[pve-devel] rfc : /etc/pve/networks.cfg implementation

[Dietmar Maurer]

> >>Not sure if we need those extra switch settings? 
> 
> yes, indeed, I think something like vnet[0-4096] could be better, 
> 
> Can't we combine 
> >>switch and transportzones? i.e.
> >>
> >>vnet1: vxlanfrr
> >>        name: zone4 # not really required
> >>        transportzone zone4
> >>        ...
> >>        l3vni: id
> >>        l3vnihwaddres: macaddress
> >>        allowedid: 1-16millions
> 
> 
> It's more to avoid to redone all config each time.
> 
> for example,
> 
> you define 1000 vnet, with unicast vxlan
> with option:
>   vxlan_remoteip proxmoxip1,proxmoxip2,proxmoxip3,.... 
> 
> 
> and one day, you want to add a new node (could be an external proxmox cluster too),
> you need to edit the 1000 vnet
> 
> same with multicast, if you want to change multicast address, or another attribute
> 
> also, some attribute need to be common, like a vrf (you can't have a different vrf applied on the real interface, and others vrf on differents vxlan)

OK, got it - this makes sense now.

> (vmware nsx is doing that too, creating logical/distributed switch on top of a transport zone)
> 
> > 3) 
> > 
> > After that, I think we need a new daemon, to generate /etc/network/interfaces locally 
> > on each node, do ifupdown2 reload on change,.... maybe do we need to manage that on a separate config ? /etc/network/interfaces.d/networks.cfg ? 
> 
> >>Or just activate when needed (at VM start)? But yes, a separate config is preferable. 
> 
> Yes, I was thinking about this.
> 
> The only case, is with frr + asymetric routing, it's a problem, because if you want
> 
> host1: vxlan1 - vm1
> host2: vxlan2 - vm2
> 
> when vm1->vm2, it's correctly routed, but the reply of vm2 need to go through vxlan1 directly. (so vxlan1 need to active on host2 too).
> (I'm not a big fan of asymmetric, so we could only implement symetric routing with frr, where the l3vni which is doing the routing)
> 
> Maybe another thing, if one day we want to implement dhcp,I don't known if it's more easy to have all network always up ?

Yes, OK for me ...