Raise priority of ParallelCluster configured route tables #2857

hanwen-cluster · 2024-12-20T20:41:09Z

This commit fixes a bug from #2855, which made the route table/metric number larger (meaning lower priority). Thereafter, some unwanted default rules on AL2023 took priority and failed test_multiple_nics integration test on AL2023.

This commit makes the number smaller (meaning higher priority) to fix the issue. e.g.
Prior to this commit, the number for table for 1,1 is 1001001. After this commit, the number is 101+10=111. The "+10" is to properly handle table for 0,0, which has number 10. Without "+10", the table would conflict with table 0 from OS.

FYI: the number of unwanted default AL2023 rule starts with 10101

Tests

test_multiple_nics on AL2023 has been passed

Checklist

Make sure you are pointing to the right branch.
If you're creating a patch for a branch other than develop add the branch name as prefix in the PR title (e.g. [release-3.6]).
Check all commits' messages are clear, describing what and why vs how.
Make sure to have added unit tests or integration tests to cover the new/modified code.
Check if documentation is impacted by this change.

Please review the guidelines for contributing and Pull Request Instructions.

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

This commit fixes a bug from aws#2855, which made the route table/metric number larger (meaning lower priority). Thereafter, some unwanted default rules on AL2023 took priority and failed test_multiple_nics integration test on AL2023. This commit makes the number smaller (meaning higher priority) to fix the issue. e.g. Prior to this commit, the number for table for 1,1 is 1001001. After this commit, the number is 101+10=111. The "+10" is to properly handle table for 0,0, which has number 10. Without "+10", the table would conflict with table 0 from OS. FYI: the number of unwanted default AL2023 rule starts with 10101 Signed-off-by: Hanwen <hanwenli@amazon.com>

aws#2855 made the pcluster route table/metric number larger (meaning lower priority). Thereafter, some unwanted default rules on AL2023 ec2-net-utils took priority and failed test_multiple_nics integration test on AL2023. Then, aws#2857 made the number too small, interfering route table configurations from IMDS on AL2. Therefore, this commit tries to imitate the priority prior to these two PRs. This is not the cleanest fix, because it is staying in the lucky priority rand instead of fully resolving the issue (i.e. prevent IMDS and ec2-net-utils from configuring the route tables). However, this commit is the least breaking change. So I propose to go with this commit. Metric number range before the two PRs Network card (0,0): 1000 Network card (0,1): 1000 (which was causing conflicts and the reason for all these PRs) Network card (n,1): 100n (for p5, which has 32 network card, it will be 1000-10031) Metric number range after the first PR: Network card (0,0): 1000000 Network card (0,1): 1000001 (conflict fixed :) ) Network card (n,1): 1000001+n*1000 (for p5, it will be 1000000-1031001) Metric number range after the second PR: Network card (0,0): 10 Network card (0,1): 75 Network card (n,1): 0x(hexadecimal number)n01+10 (for p5, it will be 10-12555. The hexadecimal number was accidentally introduced because bash automatically interpret numbers start with "00" as hexadecimal number) Metric number range after this commit: Network card (0,0): 1000 Network card (0,1): 1001 Network card (n,1): n01+1000 (for p5, it will be 1000-4101) Signed-off-by: Hanwen <hanwenli@amazon.com>

#2855 made the pcluster route table/metric number larger (meaning lower priority). Thereafter, some unwanted default rules on AL2023 ec2-net-utils took priority and failed test_multiple_nics integration test on AL2023. Then, #2857 made the number too small, interfering route table configurations from IMDS on AL2. Therefore, this commit tries to imitate the priority prior to these two PRs. This is not the cleanest fix, because it is staying in the lucky priority rand instead of fully resolving the issue (i.e. prevent IMDS and ec2-net-utils from configuring the route tables). However, this commit is the least breaking change. So I propose to go with this commit. Metric number range before the two PRs Network card (0,0): 1000 Network card (0,1): 1000 (which was causing conflicts and the reason for all these PRs) Network card (n,1): 100n (for p5, which has 32 network card, it will be 1000-10031) Metric number range after the first PR: Network card (0,0): 1000000 Network card (0,1): 1000001 (conflict fixed :) ) Network card (n,1): 1000001+n*1000 (for p5, it will be 1000000-1031001) Metric number range after the second PR: Network card (0,0): 10 Network card (0,1): 75 Network card (n,1): 0x(hexadecimal number)n01+10 (for p5, it will be 10-12555. The hexadecimal number was accidentally introduced because bash automatically interpret numbers start with "00" as hexadecimal number) Metric number range after this commit: Network card (0,0): 1000 Network card (0,1): 1001 Network card (n,1): n01+1000 (for p5, it will be 1000-4101) Signed-off-by: Hanwen <hanwenli@amazon.com>

This commit fixes a bug from aws#2855, which made the route table/metric number larger (meaning lower priority). Thereafter, some unwanted default rules on AL2023 took priority and failed test_multiple_nics integration test on AL2023. This commit makes the number smaller (meaning higher priority) to fix the issue. e.g. Prior to this commit, the number for table for 1,1 is 1001001. After this commit, the number is 101+10=111. The "+10" is to properly handle table for 0,0, which has number 10. Without "+10", the table would conflict with table 0 from OS. FYI: the number of unwanted default AL2023 rule starts with 10101 Signed-off-by: Hanwen <hanwenli@amazon.com>

aws#2855 made the pcluster route table/metric number larger (meaning lower priority). Thereafter, some unwanted default rules on AL2023 ec2-net-utils took priority and failed test_multiple_nics integration test on AL2023. Then, aws#2857 made the number too small, interfering route table configurations from IMDS on AL2. Therefore, this commit tries to imitate the priority prior to these two PRs. This is not the cleanest fix, because it is staying in the lucky priority rand instead of fully resolving the issue (i.e. prevent IMDS and ec2-net-utils from configuring the route tables). However, this commit is the least breaking change. So I propose to go with this commit. Metric number range before the two PRs Network card (0,0): 1000 Network card (0,1): 1000 (which was causing conflicts and the reason for all these PRs) Network card (n,1): 100n (for p5, which has 32 network card, it will be 1000-10031) Metric number range after the first PR: Network card (0,0): 1000000 Network card (0,1): 1000001 (conflict fixed :) ) Network card (n,1): 1000001+n*1000 (for p5, it will be 1000000-1031001) Metric number range after the second PR: Network card (0,0): 10 Network card (0,1): 75 Network card (n,1): 0x(hexadecimal number)n01+10 (for p5, it will be 10-12555. The hexadecimal number was accidentally introduced because bash automatically interpret numbers start with "00" as hexadecimal number) Metric number range after this commit: Network card (0,0): 1000 Network card (0,1): 1001 Network card (n,1): n01+1000 (for p5, it will be 1000-4101) Signed-off-by: Hanwen <hanwenli@amazon.com>

This commit fixes a bug from aws#2855, which made the route table/metric number larger (meaning lower priority). Thereafter, some unwanted default rules on AL2023 took priority and failed test_multiple_nics integration test on AL2023. This commit makes the number smaller (meaning higher priority) to fix the issue. e.g. Prior to this commit, the number for table for 1,1 is 1001001. After this commit, the number is 101+10=111. The "+10" is to properly handle table for 0,0, which has number 10. Without "+10", the table would conflict with table 0 from OS. FYI: the number of unwanted default AL2023 rule starts with 10101 Signed-off-by: Hanwen <hanwenli@amazon.com>

aws#2855 made the pcluster route table/metric number larger (meaning lower priority). Thereafter, some unwanted default rules on AL2023 ec2-net-utils took priority and failed test_multiple_nics integration test on AL2023. Then, aws#2857 made the number too small, interfering route table configurations from IMDS on AL2. Therefore, this commit tries to imitate the priority prior to these two PRs. This is not the cleanest fix, because it is staying in the lucky priority rand instead of fully resolving the issue (i.e. prevent IMDS and ec2-net-utils from configuring the route tables). However, this commit is the least breaking change. So I propose to go with this commit. Metric number range before the two PRs Network card (0,0): 1000 Network card (0,1): 1000 (which was causing conflicts and the reason for all these PRs) Network card (n,1): 100n (for p5, which has 32 network card, it will be 1000-10031) Metric number range after the first PR: Network card (0,0): 1000000 Network card (0,1): 1000001 (conflict fixed :) ) Network card (n,1): 1000001+n*1000 (for p5, it will be 1000000-1031001) Metric number range after the second PR: Network card (0,0): 10 Network card (0,1): 75 Network card (n,1): 0x(hexadecimal number)n01+10 (for p5, it will be 10-12555. The hexadecimal number was accidentally introduced because bash automatically interpret numbers start with "00" as hexadecimal number) Metric number range after this commit: Network card (0,0): 1000 Network card (0,1): 1001 Network card (n,1): n01+1000 (for p5, it will be 1000-4101) Signed-off-by: Hanwen <hanwenli@amazon.com>

enrico-usai · 2025-01-23T13:19:45Z

...s-parallelcluster-environment/files/amazon-2023/network_interfaces/configure_nw_interface.sh

-SUFFIX=$(printf "%03d" $NETWORK_CARD_INDEX)$(printf "%03d" $DEVICE_NUMBER)
-ROUTE_TABLE=1${SUFFIX}
+SUFFIX=$(printf "%03d" $NETWORK_CARD_INDEX)$(printf "%02d" $DEVICE_NUMBER)
+ROUTE_TABLE="$(( $SUFFIX + 10 ))"


it would be good to have a comment in the code to describe why this is required.

enrico-usai · 2025-01-23T13:21:13Z

...ks/aws-parallelcluster-environment/files/ubuntu/network_interfaces/configure_nw_interface.sh

-SUFFIX=$(printf "%03d" $NETWORK_CARD_INDEX)$(printf "%03d" $DEVICE_NUMBER)
-ROUTE_TABLE="1${SUFFIX}"
+SUFFIX=$(printf "%03d" $NETWORK_CARD_INDEX)$(printf "%02d" $DEVICE_NUMBER)
+ROUTE_TABLE="$(( $SUFFIX + 10 ))"


I would have expected a change in the kitchen tests after this change.

Could you please execute kitchen tests, verify if they are still correct and eventually improve coverage ? Thanks!

You can use this file to apply changes on ParallelCluster AMIs from the following PRs: aws#2855 aws#2857 aws#2858 Signed-off-by: Hanwen <hanwenli@amazon.com>

You can use this file to apply changes on ParallelCluster AMIs from the following PRs: #2855 #2857 #2858 Signed-off-by: Hanwen <hanwenli@amazon.com>

You can use this file to apply changes on ParallelCluster AMIs from the following PRs: aws#2855 aws#2857 aws#2858 Signed-off-by: Hanwen <hanwenli@amazon.com>

hanwen-cluster requested review from a team as code owners December 20, 2024 20:41

hanwen-cluster added the skip-changelog-update label Dec 20, 2024

hgreebe approved these changes Dec 24, 2024

View reviewed changes

hgreebe merged commit e479a86 into aws:develop Dec 24, 2024
33 of 44 checks passed

hanwen-cluster mentioned this pull request Dec 31, 2024

Configure proper priority for route tables #2858

Merged

enrico-usai reviewed Jan 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

hanwen-cluster mentioned this pull request Jan 24, 2025

Add a patch file to improve resiliency for additional network interface #2859

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

Raise priority of ParallelCluster configured route tables #2857

Raise priority of ParallelCluster configured route tables #2857

Uh oh!

hanwen-cluster commented Dec 20, 2024

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

enrico-usai Jan 23, 2025

Uh oh!

enrico-usai Jan 23, 2025

Uh oh!

enrico-usai Jan 23, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Raise priority of ParallelCluster configured route tables #2857

Raise priority of ParallelCluster configured route tables #2857

Uh oh!

Conversation

hanwen-cluster commented Dec 20, 2024

Tests

Checklist

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

enrico-usai Jan 23, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

enrico-usai Jan 23, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

enrico-usai Jan 23, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants