Skip to content
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

openstack: Use a service subnet for service-vm #1224

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Feb 12, 2019

Conversation

flaper87
Copy link
Contributor

Move the service VM under its own subnet. This helps creating deployment-only resources that can be easily cleaned after the fact.

For example, we can set the nodes' subnet dns nameservers to point to the service-vm and then set it to something else after the deployment succeeds in scenarios where users bring their own DNS.

/cc @tomassedovic

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. label Feb 11, 2019
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: flaper87

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Feb 11, 2019
Move the service VM under its own subnet. This helps creating
deployment-only resources that can be easily cleaned after the fact.

For example, we can set the nodes' subnet dns nameservers to point to
the service-vm and then set it to something else after the deployment
succeeds in scenarios where users bring their own DNS.
@tomassedovic
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks! This looks great & we want it.

But I've noticed that the workers come up in the service subnet instead of the nodes one. Which means they still don't get the right DNS config.

It's not introducing any regressions, so we can do that in a follow-up patch. Let me know what you think.

@flaper87
Copy link
Contributor Author

flaper87 commented Feb 12, 2019

@tomassedovic probably better in a follow-up patch because I'm afraid that may not be related to this PR. :/

@tomassedovic
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 12, 2019
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit a35f611 into openshift:master Feb 12, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants