| Summary: | [RFE] warn user when bonding SR-IOV VFs under one physical port | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [oVirt] ovirt-engine | Reporter: | Martin Polednik <mpoledni> |
| Component: | BLL.Network | Assignee: | Dan Kenigsberg <danken> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Meni Yakove <myakove> |
| Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | future | CC: | bugs, edwardh, ylavi |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | FutureFeature |
| Target Release: | --- | Flags: | ylavi:
ovirt-future?
rule-engine: planning_ack? rule-engine: devel_ack? rule-engine: testing_ack? |
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2018-06-06 07:53:25 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | Network | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
|
Description
Martin Polednik
2016-12-07 13:52:43 UTC
Doesn't network manager warn on this? If not can we move this RFE to them? Defining a bond over VF/s that share the same PF is not only wrong, it is an error. The phy has a mini switch/bridge and having potential duplicate mac/s arriving from different VF/s will mess it up. The RFE should not be on adding the warning, it should be on hiding the VF interfaces on the host, only VM/s should use those and I do not see any valid scenario to have them exposed on the host. Regarding NM, I am not sure how we can expect such a warning from NM, it is not concerned with high lever misuse of the devices, that's a higher level concern. (In reply to Edward Haas from comment #2) > Defining a bond over VF/s that share the same PF is not only wrong, it is an > error. The phy has a mini switch/bridge and having potential duplicate mac/s > arriving from different VF/s will mess it up. > > The RFE should not be on adding the warning, it should be on hiding the VF > interfaces on the host, only VM/s should use those and I do not see any > valid scenario to have them exposed on the host. Containers may use these devices. > > Regarding NM, I am not sure how we can expect such a warning from NM, it is > not concerned with high lever misuse of the devices, that's a higher level > concern. I don't think so, since this is the host level error, not a cluster level error. (In reply to Yaniv Lavi from comment #3) > (In reply to Edward Haas from comment #2) > > Defining a bond over VF/s that share the same PF is not only wrong, it is an > > error. The phy has a mini switch/bridge and having potential duplicate mac/s > > arriving from different VF/s will mess it up. > > > > The RFE should not be on adding the warning, it should be on hiding the VF > > interfaces on the host, only VM/s should use those and I do not see any > > valid scenario to have them exposed on the host. > > Containers may use these devices. Containers in this regard have the same behaviour, the VF interface is moved to the context of the VM/Container. I claim that they should not be used in the context/view of the host. > > > > > Regarding NM, I am not sure how we can expect such a warning from NM, it is > > not concerned with high lever misuse of the devices, that's a higher level > > concern. > > I don't think so, since this is the host level error, not a cluster level > error. It is a user error, the tool allows you to configure things, but it is not enforcing you to do it in a "correct" way. Someone may find such a use valid, like in a test. But I guess you need to convince NM team to see it as you do, not me. Maybe it will make sense for them. Closing old RFEs, please reopen if still needed. Patches are always welcomed. |