-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Assign service to FHRP #8423
Comments
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. NetBox is governed by a small group of core maintainers which means not all opened issues may receive direct feedback. Please see our contributing guide. |
This will require ditching the current |
I don't know how much has to be changed for this, but I would be really happy if this could be done. As described in my request, I cannot use FHRP yet because of this restriction. |
Service definitely needs some way to describe load balanced services, both layer 3/4 like LVS and layer 7. One ends up with two types of nodes involved in the service, however. The load balancer (where the IP gets bound/answers ARP/VRRP), and the service nodes (where the service actually runs, which are either NAT'd or don't answer ARP/VRRP). This is very similar to FHRP, but not quite the same. The gateway protocols FHRP covers are typically only on the LB, with the LB either having multiple NAT targets for the VIP (layer 7/LVS NAT), or the same IP configured, but not answering arp (LVS DR). |
I run into the same problem when I try to document exposed kubernetes services. |
For me, this sounds like a perfect solution. Support of FHRP would be just a "side effect" of the change. Apart from the work and the breaking changes there is one thing to consider: if a device/VM has multiple IP addresses, you need multiple service definitions. Especially with dual stack setups, this isn't really funny. BTW: the way services are defined is not perfect in general. Services usually depend on the role of the device. E.g. with icinga this can be defined automagically, but this is far beyond this issue :) |
We're in need of this as well, and I'd also like to suggest that however this gets implemented that the services are still visible on the device or VM's main page. |
We've also hit this, trying to roughly map k8s pods as netbox vm's. |
I also hit this issue too. Having said all that, if you don't specify anything in the device/VM drop down, and then type your Public IP into the IP address box, it does let you select it, then if you go back up to the device box and type in the device and select it, you can then save the form and it then does show up against the FHRP group and on the device as well. |
I also have the need to record the service on a FHRP Group IP Address, would love to see this in the next implementation of 3.5 or 3.6 if it's not too much of a hustle. |
I see it differently, in case of F5 and other highly available deployments, the actual used IP is never attached to a given interface, it would respond to ARP requests if the virtual address is on the same subnet as one of its vlan interfaces, or if the prefix is routed to the F5. In those cases it would make more sense to be able to attach a server to a set of devices, physical or virtual, and associate an address to it (not restricted to ones attached to the devices). This would more accurately represent the "real world" deployment. In cases of HA Proxy and Keepalived for example, the same process can be used, the service address would be the same as of teh FHRP group and the associated devices would be the number of HA Proxy servers, this way there's flexibility to allow both use cases. |
NetBox version
v3.1.6
Feature type
New functionality
Proposed functionality
Be able to assign services to a FHRP group.
This can be done by either:
Use case
You have a service (e.g. HTTP) that is redundantly provided by 2 servers (e.g. web1, web2). For this, you define a FHRP group (e.g. "1"), add an IP address to it (say 192.168.100.100) and assign this group to both servers. Servers may be devices or virtual machines.
Now, you want to define the service somehow. Assigning it directly to a server is impossible, as the shared IP address is not shown (this is another topic). Assigning a service to the FHRP group is impossible too.
In my case, my monitoring system reads service definitions from NetBox, which is sadly impossible.
Workaround is to not use FHRP groups in NetBox but assign CARP IP addresses directly to server interfaces, but that's a step backwards.
Database changes
No response
External dependencies
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: