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

Bug 1910165: [baremetal] Correctly handle multiple ipv6 addresses on interface #2312

Merged

Conversation

cybertron
Copy link
Member

Generally speaking there should only be one address configured per
interface. However, in some ipv6 environments a node may get an
address from both DHCP and SLAAC. In this case, we need to make sure
that the ipv6 DHCP to static dispatcher script can handle the inputs
it gets.

Previously, the lease time check would get back a single string
with multiple values. This caused the if to always fail, which
meant we would do static configuration even if the DHCP lease was
not infinite.

This change further filters the lease time query to ensure it only
returns the value for the specific DHCP address in question. It also
improves the address assignment logic to ensure that we get the
correct address no matter how many are present on the interface.

- What I did

- How to verify it

- Description for the changelog

Generally speaking there should only be one address configured per
interface. However, in some ipv6 environments a node may get an
address from both DHCP and SLAAC. In this case, we need to make sure
that the ipv6 DHCP to static dispatcher script can handle the inputs
it gets.

Previously, the lease time check would get back a single string
with multiple values. This caused the if to always fail, which
meant we would do static configuration even if the DHCP lease was
not infinite.

This change further filters the lease time query to ensure it only
returns the value for the specific DHCP address in question. It also
improves the address assignment logic to ensure that we get the
correct address no matter how many are present on the interface.
@cybertron cybertron changed the title [baremetal] Correctly handle multiple ipv6 addresses on interface Bug 1910165: [baremetal] Correctly handle multiple ipv6 addresses on interface Dec 23, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added bugzilla/severity-high Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is high for the branch this PR is targeting. bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. labels Dec 23, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@cybertron: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1910165, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state. The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug
  • bug is open, matching expected state (open)
  • bug target release (4.7.0) matches configured target release for branch (4.7.0)
  • bug is in the state NEW, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, ON_DEV, POST, POST)

In response to this:

Bug 1910165: [baremetal] Correctly handle multiple ipv6 addresses on interface

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/test-infra repository.

@kikisdeliveryservice
Copy link
Contributor

/assign @celebdor

@cybertron
Copy link
Member Author

/retest

@celebdor
Copy link
Contributor

celebdor commented Jan 8, 2021

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jan 8, 2021
@sinnykumari
Copy link
Contributor

/approve

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: celebdor, cybertron, sinnykumari

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 Jan 11, 2021
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

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

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 11, 2021

@cybertron: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-gcp-op bb8703c link /test e2e-gcp-op
ci/prow/e2e-aws bb8703c link /test e2e-aws

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/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@ashcrow
Copy link
Member

ashcrow commented Jan 11, 2021

/test e2e-aws

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 9347e45 into openshift:master Jan 11, 2021
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

@cybertron: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

Bugzilla bug 1910165 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

Bug 1910165: [baremetal] Correctly handle multiple ipv6 addresses on interface

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/test-infra repository.

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. bugzilla/severity-high Referenced Bugzilla bug's severity is high for the branch this PR is targeting. bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

8 participants