OCPBUGS-29608: use IPv6 as the primary #8043
Conversation
openshift-ci-robot
added
jira/severity-low
|
@gryf: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-29608, which is invalid:
Comment The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker. In response to this: Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
/jira refresh |
openshift-ci-robot
added
the
jira/valid-bug
|
@gryf: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-29608, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state. 3 validation(s) were run on this bug
Requesting review from QA contact: In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository. |
openshift-ci-robot
removed
the
jira/invalid-bug
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Rather than introduce a new variable, can we see if it's possible to detect which one of IPv4 or IPv6 is the primary one by looking at the generated manifests?
Also more importantly, from a maintenance perspective, we should avoid duplicating the rules, and instead use a variable to set the ethertype accordingly on each of the rules based on the IP setup.
That's not possible at this point, as we don't have manifests yet. We need to decide on which network should be primary based on something, and while I can't see a straight way to predict it, hence the variable.
Hm. There are differences on the IPv6 rules over IPv4 - some of the rules are missing, I'll check the through. |
|
Parametrized playbook, as @mandre suggested, also fixed python script according to @MaysaMacedo remarks. |
|
/test e2e-openstack-upi |
|
/retest |
| protocol: udp | ||
| remote_ip_prefix: "{{ os_subnet_range }}" | ||
| remote_ip_prefix: "{{ os_subnet6_range if ipv6_primary else os_subnet_range }}" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Changing NAT related rules is not necessary, there is no NAT with IPv6.
| protocol: udp | ||
| remote_ip_prefix: "{{ os_subnet_range }}" | ||
| remote_ip_prefix: "{{ os_subnet6_range if ipv6_primary else os_subnet_range }}" |
|
|
||
| - name: 'Create security groups for IPv6' | ||
| - name: "Create security groups for {{ 'IPv6' if ipv6_primary else 'IPv4' }}" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's confusing that we're setting IPv4 as ethertype when using IPv6 primary inside this block.
Also, looks like there are various rules that don't need to be touched, like master ingress HTTP (TCP). We were already enabling IPv4 and IPv6 at the same time without the change proposed. Can you revisit the rules and not update the ones that already enable IPv4 and IPv6?
Here are the IPv6 rules that were included when adding IPv6 primary support on IPI 2748047
|
@gryf: The following tests failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
No description provided.