Specifying Multiple IP Configurations per Network Interface #259

stack72 · 2016-01-10T00:30:30Z

I am trying to make the following call to the API:

{
    "name": "acceptanceTestNetworkInterface1",
    "location": "westus",
    "properties": {
        "ipConfigurations": [{
            "properties": {
                "loadBalancerBackendAddressPools": null,
                "loadBalancerInboundNatRules": null,
                "privateIPAllocationMethod": "dynamic",
                "subnet": {
                    "id": "/subscriptions/xxxx/resourceGroups/acceptanceTestResourceGroup1/providers/Microsoft.Network/virtualNetworks/acceptanceTestVirtualNetwork1/subnets/testsubnet1"
                }
            },
            "name": "testconfiguration2"
        }, {
            "properties": {
                "loadBalancerBackendAddressPools": null,
                "loadBalancerInboundNatRules": null,
                "privateIPAllocationMethod": "dynamic",
                "subnet": {
                    "id": "/subscriptions/xxxx/resourceGroups/acceptanceTestResourceGroup1/providers/Microsoft.Network/virtualNetworks/acceptanceTestVirtualNetwork1/subnets/testsubnet"
                }
            },
            "name": "testconfiguration1"
        }],
    }
}

I get the following response:

{
    "error": {
        "code": "NetworkInterfaceMustHaveOneOneIPConfigAsPrimary",
        "message": "Network Interface acceptanceTestNetworkInterface1 specifies multiple IPConfigurations but none of the IPConfigurations is specified as Primary.",
        "details": []
    }
}

The struct for the network interface looks as follows:

type Interface struct {
    autorest.Response `json:"-"`
    ID                *string                    `json:"id,omitempty"`
    Name              *string                    `json:"name,omitempty"`
    Type              *string                    `json:"type,omitempty"`
    Location          *string                    `json:"location,omitempty"`
    Tags              *map[string]*string        `json:"tags,omitempty"`
    Properties        *InterfacePropertiesFormat `json:"properties,omitempty"`
    Etag              *string                    `json:"etag,omitempty"`
}

type InterfacePropertiesFormat struct {
    VirtualMachine       *SubResource                `json:"virtualMachine,omitempty"`
    NetworkSecurityGroup *SecurityGroup              `json:"networkSecurityGroup,omitempty"`
    IPConfigurations     *[]InterfaceIPConfiguration `json:"ipConfigurations,omitempty"`
    DNSSettings          *InterfaceDNSSettings       `json:"dnsSettings,omitempty"`
    MacAddress           *string                     `json:"macAddress,omitempty"`
    Primary              *bool                       `json:"primary,omitempty"`
    EnableIPForwarding   *bool                       `json:"enableIPForwarding,omitempty"`
    ResourceGUID         *string                     `json:"resourceGuid,omitempty"`
    ProvisioningState    *string                     `json:"provisioningState,omitempty"`
}

The Primary is outside of the IPConfigurations. Therefore, we cannot pass primary: true for any of the IPConfigurations. The correct request should look as follows:

{
    "name": "acceptanceTestNetworkInterface1",
    "location": "westus",
    "properties": {
        "ipConfigurations": [{
            "properties": {
                "loadBalancerBackendAddressPools": null,
                "loadBalancerInboundNatRules": null,
                "privateIPAllocationMethod": "dynamic",
                "subnet": {
                    "id": "/subscriptions/xxxx/resourceGroups/acceptanceTestResourceGroup1/providers/Microsoft.Network/virtualNetworks/acceptanceTestVirtualNetwork1/subnets/testsubnet1"
                }
            },
            "name": "testconfiguration2"
        }, {
            "properties": {
                "loadBalancerBackendAddressPools": null,
                "loadBalancerInboundNatRules": null,
                "privateIPAllocationMethod": "dynamic",
                "subnet": {
                    "id": "/subscriptions/xxxx/resourceGroups/acceptanceTestResourceGroup1/providers/Microsoft.Network/virtualNetworks/acceptanceTestVirtualNetwork1/subnets/testsubnet"
                }
                                "primary": true
            },
            "name": "testconfiguration1"
        }],
    }
}

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

jen20 · 2016-01-10T01:28:17Z

I haven't looked into the Swagger yet but can verify the structures in the generated client do not match what is running in production, and it is therefore impossible to create a network interface with multiple IP configurations without hacking around the SDK at present - for now we've just documented it as a bug in the Terraform docs, and will update when this is fixed.

brendandixon · 2016-01-11T18:56:10Z

The issue comes from the Swagger. I've verified that it is in both the Network/2015-06-15 and prior version. See https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/master/arm-network/2015-06-15/swagger/network.json#L5849.

If you would not mind, please, post an issue against that repository. I'll poke around as well.

DeepakRajendranMsft · 2016-01-11T20:18:02Z

Hi @stack72,

Thanks for pointing this out. The "primary" flag outside IPConfiguration is valid since we support MultiNic scenario. So the flag will tell the user whether the nic is a primary or not.

Yes, though we have IPConfiguration as a list, we are currently working on Multiple IPConfiguration support (once that is done, we will update the schema and the client with the "primary" field). This currently is a bug on the service where we are not throwing the appropriate error message. (the message should be something along the lines of "Multiple IPConfigurations not supported"). We will fix this soon.

Thanks,
Deepak.

Change this to a loop when Azure/azure-sdk-for-go#259 is fixed

* Adding private ip address reference * adding private ip address reference * Updating the docs. * Removing optional attrib from private_ip_address Removing optional attribute from private_ip_address, this element is only being used in the read. * Selecting the first element instead of using a loop for now. Change this to a loop when Azure/azure-sdk-for-go#259 is fixed

colemickens · 2016-05-18T20:55:12Z

@DeepakRajendranMsft

I don't understand. When I query for my NIC in resources.azure.com, I can see the ipConfiguration itself has a primary field that is populated.

On the other hand, when I query my VM and inspect the NetworkProfile, the Primary field is NOT populated on the interface.

This indicates to me that the Swagger does not conform to the actual behavior of the API. I'm actively having to work around this by making certain assumptions.

colemickens · 2016-05-18T20:58:20Z

@DeepakRajendranMsft

GET https://management.azure.com/subscriptions/27b750cd-ed43-42fd-9044-8d75e124ae55/resourceGroups/colemick-kube-ubuntu-0/providers/Microsoft.Compute/virtualMachines/master?api-version=2016-03-30

[...]
    "networkProfile": {
      "networkInterfaces": [
        {
          "id": "/subscriptions/27b750cd-ed43-42fd-9044-8d75e124ae55/resourceGroups/colemick-kube-ubuntu-0/providers/Microsoft.Network/networkInterfaces/master815"
        }
      ]
    },
[...]

So this does not contain the primary field, despite the Swagger spec saying that it would.

And then:

GET https://management.azure.com/subscriptions/27b750cd-ed43-42fd-9044-8d75e124ae55/resourceGroups/colemick-kube-ubuntu-0/providers/Microsoft.Network/networkInterfaces/master815?api-version=2016-03-30

[...]
"ipConfigurations": [
      {
        "name": "ipconfig1",
        "id": "/subscriptions/27b750cd-ed43-42fd-9044-8d75e124ae55/resourceGroups/colemick-kube-ubuntu-0/providers/Microsoft.Network/networkInterfaces/master815/ipConfigurations/ipconfig1",
        "etag": "W/\"fdea6b24-7abe-4f57-986e-c27e14eff876\"",
        "properties": {
          "provisioningState": "Succeeded",
          "privateIPAddress": "10.0.0.4",
          "privateIPAllocationMethod": "Dynamic",
          "publicIPAddress": {
            "id": "/subscriptions/27b750cd-ed43-42fd-9044-8d75e124ae55/resourceGroups/colemick-kube-ubuntu-0/providers/Microsoft.Network/publicIPAddresses/master"
          },
          "subnet": {
            "id": "/subscriptions/27b750cd-ed43-42fd-9044-8d75e124ae55/resourceGroups/colemick-kube-ubuntu-0/providers/Microsoft.Network/virtualNetworks/colemick-kube-vnet/subnets/colemick-kube-nodes"
          },
          "primary": true,
          "privateIPAddressVersion": "IPv4",
          "loadBalancerBackendAddressPools": [
            {
              "id": "/subscriptions/27b750cd-ed43-42fd-9044-8d75e124ae55/resourceGroups/colemick-kube-ubuntu-0/providers/Microsoft.Network/loadBalancers/aafdf4dfe1a8b11e6a4f2000d3a332e1/backendAddressPools/aafdf4dfe1a8b11e6a4f2000d3a332e1"
            }
          ]
        }
      }
[...]

Which shows the ipConfiguration coming back with a "primary" field, and yet this isn't exposed in Swagger.

The net result is that I can't tell which NIC is primary, and I can't tell which ipConfiguration on a given NIC is primary. This does not seem correct to me.

…hicorp#6538) * Adding private ip address reference * adding private ip address reference * Updating the docs. * Removing optional attrib from private_ip_address Removing optional attribute from private_ip_address, this element is only being used in the read. * Selecting the first element instead of using a loop for now. Change this to a loop when Azure/azure-sdk-for-go#259 is fixed

ahmetb · 2016-08-02T17:44:46Z

@colemickens do you know if this is fixed?

colemickens · 2016-08-10T22:09:53Z

Not really. The other thread: Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#305 has open questions about if this has been addressed appropriately. I'll ping that thread.

colemickens · 2016-08-12T00:57:50Z

This is resolved. See here for the details: Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#305 (comment)

* Adding private ip address reference * adding private ip address reference * Updating the docs. * Removing optional attrib from private_ip_address Removing optional attribute from private_ip_address, this element is only being used in the read. * Selecting the first element instead of using a loop for now. Change this to a loop when Azure/azure-sdk-for-go#259 is fixed

stack72 mentioned this issue Jan 10, 2016

provider/azurerm: add network interface resource hashicorp/terraform#4598

Merged

4 tasks

ahmetb added the area/azureresourcemanager label Jan 25, 2016

stack72 mentioned this issue May 6, 2016

azurerm - error when trying to create a VM with multiple NICs - Network interface must have Primary property set hashicorp/terraform#6514

Closed

Felivel mentioned this issue May 9, 2016

Adding private ip address reference to azurerm network interface hashicorp/terraform#6538

Merged

Felivel added a commit to Felivel/terraform that referenced this issue May 9, 2016

Selecting the first element instead of using a loop for now.

0587611

Change this to a loop when Azure/azure-sdk-for-go#259 is fixed

colemickens mentioned this issue May 18, 2016

CRP and NRP Swagger are not accurate for NIC/IPConfiguration's primary fields Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#305

Closed

colemickens closed this as completed Aug 12, 2016

FrenchBen mentioned this issue Mar 19, 2018

[Enhancement] ip_configuration add count support hashicorp/terraform-provider-azurerm#1002

Closed

github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 11, 2023

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Specifying Multiple IP Configurations per Network Interface #259

Specifying Multiple IP Configurations per Network Interface #259

stack72 commented Jan 10, 2016

jen20 commented Jan 10, 2016

brendandixon commented Jan 11, 2016

DeepakRajendranMsft commented Jan 11, 2016

colemickens commented May 18, 2016

colemickens commented May 18, 2016 •

edited

ahmetb commented Aug 2, 2016

colemickens commented Aug 10, 2016

colemickens commented Aug 12, 2016

Specifying Multiple IP Configurations per Network Interface #259

Specifying Multiple IP Configurations per Network Interface #259

Comments

stack72 commented Jan 10, 2016

jen20 commented Jan 10, 2016

brendandixon commented Jan 11, 2016

DeepakRajendranMsft commented Jan 11, 2016

colemickens commented May 18, 2016

colemickens commented May 18, 2016 • edited

ahmetb commented Aug 2, 2016

colemickens commented Aug 10, 2016

colemickens commented Aug 12, 2016

colemickens commented May 18, 2016 •

edited