Add support for complex interfaces+optionally bonding.

[michaeltchapman]

https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-cisco/grizzly/+bug/1159597

[rickerc]

This needs to be $bonding = "echo 'bonding' >> /target/etc/modules"

[michaeltchapman]

@rickerc look OK now? Actually the quotes are the other way around in the late_command sprintf.

[rickerc]

+1

[danehans]

The interfaces template file looks as though it will break standard OpenStack deployments. Additionally, I originally used templates to control interfaces, but I found them to be too constraining to support various deployment models. Please review the example interface files in our HA and Folsom deployment guides for additional details:

http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/COE_Grizzly_Release:_High-Availability_Manual_Installation_Guide#Networking
http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Cisco_OpenStack_Edition:_Folsom_Manual_Install

[iawells]

I'm not sure what your issue is with standard deployments. As for your vlans, you're right that they cannot be templated - in those instances, though, you can't template the internal interface (which is really key to the bonding problem, because you can't change the default route post-install in any easy way, or its bonding config, because you cut yourself off from the puppetmaster) and then add the vlan aux interfaces with puppet.

[danehans]

The network module has been removed from the module list. Both interfaces are configured for static, when the interface used by OVS should be manual. The Grizzly manifests that I have been working on with Dan B use an interface dedicated for GRE tenant traffic isolation. Network interface definitions differ between Control, Compute, SLB and Swift Nodes. I'm all for adding bonding support, but I think we should keep the same network_config definitions and network module until we agree on a better way of managing interfaces.