-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
Add L2 networks to Zones with SG #7719
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
Conversation
|
@blueorangutan package |
|
@DaanHoogland a [SF] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress. |
|
Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el7 ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 6414 |
|
@blueorangutan test |
|
@DaanHoogland a [SF] Trillian-Jenkins test job (centos7 mgmt + kvm-centos7) has been kicked to run smoke tests |
|
[SF] Trillian test result (tid-6994)
|
|
@benj-n |
In the test, a VM has a first NIC with shared network (and security groups) on vlan100/vnet16 and a second NIC with an L2 network (vlan2150/vnet20): The vnet20 and the L2 network are completely absent from iptables : The L2 is also completely absent from ip6tables: And the ipset only references IPs from the shared network: It's the same for ebtables, as expected, the L2 network is totally ignored there too. |
DaanHoogland
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
code looks good, not sure about the side effects. needs extensive testing
@benj-n btw: did you create the L2 network with specified vlan id ? |
|
@weizhouapache @benj-n is this applicable for 4.18 as well? |
@DaanHoogland yes, very nice feature with small changes. I'd like to add it to 4.18.1.0 , unless someone objects. |
|
Great feature. Did a bit of testing and largely my findings are similar to those of Wei, ie the VM gets connected in the appropriate L2 network, but no iptables or ebtables rules are set up for it, so far so good. A few notes: 1 - network traffic between machines on separate HVs worked because iptables defaults to ACCEPT for INPUT, FORWARD and OUTPUT. If an operator makes changes there it will result in issues. This is just FYI, I am not saying we should do any action in this kind of scenarios. 2 - Creating a VM only on an L2 network is not possible currently, Cloudstack returns: 3 - Network offering "Offering for L2 networks" did not produce a functional VM deployment for me, had to go for "Offering for L2 networks VLAN" and specify a VLAN. Not a major issue, but worth keeping in mind. 4 - Last but NOT least, unlike Shared networks, the scope of L2 networks is account, so there can't be an expectation for multiple accounts to be able to connect in the same network. Just making sure we're aware of this. :) Looking forward to having this feature in Cloudstack! |
Yes. Unfortunately, I can only have tagged traffic on the specific L2 network I have for testing. |
It's now rebased on 4.18. |
|
@blueorangutan package |
|
@DaanHoogland a [SF] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress. |
|
Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el7 ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 6451 |
|
@blueorangutan test |
|
@DaanHoogland a [SF] Trillian-Jenkins test job (centos7 mgmt + kvm-centos7) has been kicked to run smoke tests |
|
Good job rebasing. I have tested and my results are identical, the feature works as per my previous attempt on 4.19. In the future it will be nice if we were able to deploy on l2-net only as well as have users be able to create them themselves from a pool of vlans. |
@NuxRo Thanks for testing. 🙏 Those are awesome features, but let's keep the scope as it is for now. Those changes require a lot to be done, we can plan them later. |
NuxRo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM based on testing with KVM/EL8 deployments, both 4.18 and 4.19.
|
[SF] Trillian test result (tid-7036)
|
@soreana @NuxRo |
Description
Currently, it is not possible to create a raw L2 network within an advanced zone with security groups enabled.
It is expected that Cloudstack does not have any control over the security in an L2 network, by the definition itself of such network.
The fact that security groups are enabled or disabled should not be a blocker for L2 networks. Especially as these L2 can be useful when used as secondary networks (with no services) in a zone with existing shared networks protected by security groups.
This PR doesn't add a new feature per se, but rather prevent cloudstack from blocking the creation of L2 networks.
Types of changes
Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity
Feature/Enhancement Scale
Bug Severity
Screenshots (if appropriate):
How Has This Been Tested?