adding new bridge option along with support for metaconfig #44
Conversation
msagheer
changed the title
| You can also choose to link the network to a specific bridge in PLUMgrid virtual domain, | ||
| this also is optional and can be used depending upon your use case. | ||
| ``` | ||
| $ docker network create --subnet=10.0.0.0/24 -d plumgrid -o bridge=bridge-1 net1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's call it network_id instead of bridge
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Guys also, I have a question/request. Since I lack knowledge on the cnm
area I'm blindly asking at this point.
I'm finding incredibly troublesome the fact that we are using uuids for the
network VNF names that are specified and contained inside a tenant. I
understand that UUIDs are good to give uniqueness, specially since docker
has no domain segmentation, so ie. 2 tenants might try to create 2 networks
that have the same name (which in any case probably docker would reject
anyway I guess).
IE.
docker network create -d plumgrid --subnet 10.0.0.0/24 --gateway 10.0.0.100
-o domain=<domain_name> <bridge_name>
As read on UI (virtual domain):
the bridge name:
bri136b0fbd91c1ac2b92464aba469078b7647de1531473b9139faaa4139b3c9754
cnf: cnf136b0fbd91c1ac2b92464aba469078b7647de1531473b9139faaa4139b3c9754[object]
rule: rules136b0fbd91c1ac2b92464aba469078b7647de1531473b9139faaa4139b3c9754[object]
The current naming convention is hidden on the implementation and is pretty
much a mix of plumgrid definition and docker definition.
Is there a chance we can change this to more human-readable,
plumgrid-dependable names?
IE.
With the example above, I'd expect I to be able to connect anything on
the bridge without docker interaction.
Using the docker uuids is adding an extra dependency for plumgrid to
configure anything, since now I need first ping docker to check what is the
associated uuid to that network in order to do anything at all; which from
a plumgrid POV I don't see so legitimate as *I know perfectly what it is
and where it is *(domain name and bridge name).
Also consider that, if for any reason, docker looses the data for the
networks it has created (which stores in the kv store), and the uuids are
gone, there is little other option other than wiping the network on the
entire setup anew, since I don't think you can re-create the network that
are still available in plumgrid on docker with the same uuid it used to
have.
tl;dr
Is it possible to find a way we use domain/bridge_name to create a name
convention that works for us, provides the same uniqueness as the uuids of
docker have and is still detached from docker uuids? I think it would be
better for everyone in all possible angles.
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Fawad Khaliq notifications@github.com
wrote:
In README.md
#44 (comment)
:@@ -35,6 +35,12 @@ this is entirely optional and depending on your use case, you may use it.
$ docker network create --subnet=10.0.0.0/24 -d plumgrid -o router=router-1 net1+You can also choose to link the network to a specific bridge in PLUMgrid virtual domain, +this also is optional and can be used depending upon your use case. +``` +$ docker network create --subnet=10.0.0.0/24 -d plumgrid -o bridge=bridge-1 net1Let's call it network_id instead of bridge
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/plumgrid/libnetwork-plugin/pull/44/files/3b43366ec70b41e6a6caa7845c030dec623fe5d9#r72654627,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFP7tFOcVYZaDi2qR_U6QBS8f3Yj4ATiks5qaNe9gaJpZM4JXBkr
.
Eduard Serra,
MTS @ Plumgrid Inc
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Bad thread reply, sending on new mail thread.
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Eduard Serra eduards@plumgrid.com wrote:
Guys also, I have a question/request. Since I lack knowledge on the cnm
area I'm blindly asking at this point.I'm finding incredibly troublesome the fact that we are using uuids for
the network VNF names that are specified and contained inside a tenant. I
understand that UUIDs are good to give uniqueness, specially since docker
has no domain segmentation, so ie. 2 tenants might try to create 2 networks
that have the same name (which in any case probably docker would reject
anyway I guess).IE.
docker network create -d plumgrid --subnet 10.0.0.0/24 --gateway
10.0.0.100 -o domain=<domain_name> <bridge_name>As read on UI (virtual domain):
the bridge name:
bri136b0fbd91c1ac2b92464aba469078b7647de1531473b9139faaa4139b3c9754cnf: cnf136b0fbd91c1ac2b92464aba469078b7647de1531473b9139faaa4139b3c9754[object]
rule: rules136b0fbd91c1ac2b92464aba469078b7647de1531473b9139faaa4139b3c9754[object]
The current naming convention is hidden on the implementation and is
pretty much a mix of plumgrid definition and docker definition.
Is there a chance we can change this to more human-readable,
plumgrid-dependable names?IE.
With the example above, I'd expect I to be able to connect anything on
the bridge without docker interaction.
Using the docker uuids is adding an extra dependency for plumgrid to
configure anything, since now I need first ping docker to check what is the
associated uuid to that network in order to do anything at all; which from
a plumgrid POV I don't see so legitimate as *I know perfectly what it is
and where it is *(domain name and bridge name).Also consider that, if for any reason, docker looses the data for the
networks it has created (which stores in the kv store), and the uuids are
gone, there is little other option other than wiping the network on the
entire setup anew, since I don't think you can re-create the network that
are still available in plumgrid on docker with the same uuid it used to
have.tl;dr
Is it possible to find a way we use domain/bridge_name to create a name
convention that works for us, provides the same uniqueness as the uuids of
docker have and is still detached from docker uuids? I think it would be
better for everyone in all possible angles.On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Fawad Khaliq notifications@github.com
wrote:In README.md
#44 (comment)
:@@ -35,6 +35,12 @@ this is entirely optional and depending on your use case, you may use it.
$ docker network create --subnet=10.0.0.0/24 -d plumgrid -o router=router-1 net1+You can also choose to link the network to a specific bridge in PLUMgrid virtual domain, +this also is optional and can be used depending upon your use case. +``` +$ docker network create --subnet=10.0.0.0/24 -d plumgrid -o bridge=bridge-1 net1Let's call it network_id instead of bridge
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/plumgrid/libnetwork-plugin/pull/44/files/3b43366ec70b41e6a6caa7845c030dec623fe5d9#r72654627,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFP7tFOcVYZaDi2qR_U6QBS8f3Yj4ATiks5qaNe9gaJpZM4JXBkr
.Eduard Serra,
MTS @ Plumgrid Inc
Eduard Serra,
MTS @ Plumgrid Inc
No description provided.