Bug 1723527

Summary:	Routes failing with HostAlreadyClaimed. route x exposes y and is older
Product:	OpenShift Container Platform	Reporter:	Steven Walter <stwalter>
Component:	Networking	Assignee:	Dan Mace <dmace>
Networking sub component:	router	QA Contact:	Hongan Li <hongli>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	Docs Contact:
Severity:	medium
Priority:	low	CC:	aos-bugs
Version:	3.11.0
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	3.11.z
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:	2019-09-26 21:39:10 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Steven Walter 2019-06-24 17:38:13 UTC

Description of problem:
Customer sets up a new route with a hostname that no other route in the cluster has. However it fails with "HostAlreadyClaimed" error, even though no other route claims that host.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
3.11

How reproducible:
Intermittent in customer's cluster


Additional info:
Interesting to note, it seems arbitrary as to what will succeed or fail. Like:

FAILS:
myapp-test.apps.example.com
myapp2-test.apps.example.com

Comment 2 Steven Walter 2019-08-26 21:47:11 UTC

Another customer of mine experienced the issue. We tracked that it should be fixed in 3.11.82 as per: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1660598

However, the customer reproduced the issue on 3.11.104. Uploading deploymentconfig, haproxy.config, and other details.

Comment 6 Dan Mace 2019-09-26 18:18:12 UTC

Was this fixed by the solution for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1660598? If so, can this bug be closed as a duplicate? If not, is there still a problem to solve?

Comment 7 Steven Walter 2019-09-26 21:39:10 UTC

Havent heard from any customer attached to the bugzilla in quite some time, so I think the other bug fixed the issue.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1660598 ***