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

CA-223676: Check physical connectivity for management interface. #2880

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

sharady
Copy link
Contributor

@sharady sharady commented Jan 16, 2017

Management interface must not be marked as up if IP is acquired
and physical connectivity is down.
This might be possible in case of static ip configuration.

Signed-off-by: Sharad Yadav sharad.yadav@citrix.com

Management interface must not be marked as up if IP is acquired
and physical connectivity is down.
This might be possible in case of static ip configuration.

Signed-off-by: Sharad Yadav <sharad.yadav@citrix.com>
@sharady
Copy link
Contributor Author

sharady commented Jan 16, 2017

@robhoes This PR currently checks the carrier for bridge like xenbr0, Is that a right way. Or should we check for carrier for physical device eth0 respectively.

@robhoes
Copy link
Member

robhoes commented Jan 16, 2017

We need to check the carrier of the physical interface, not the bridge. In fact, if it is a bond, we need to check whether at least one of the bonded interfaces has a carrier. And if management is on a VLAN, we need to check the underlying physical interface(s) as well (which may be bonded).

@robhoes
Copy link
Member

robhoes commented Jan 16, 2017

My first though what that we should just look at the PIF_metrics.carrier field in the DB, for which all of the above is taken care of. However, this code is called when xapi starts, and then we can't rely on the metrics yet. On first boot, there won't even be a PIF in the DB yet. That is why the current function finds the management bridge in the inventory file.

@euanh
Copy link
Contributor

euanh commented Jan 31, 2017

@sharady Are you planning to do anything on this pull request soon? If not, please close it and reopen it when you are ready to submit.

@sharady
Copy link
Contributor Author

sharady commented Jan 31, 2017

@euanh Sure I am closing it now, will create a new PR with required changes. Thanks

@sharady sharady closed this Jan 31, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants