Bug 1741260
Summary: | [RFE] Add validation on LoadBalancer migration to ensure externalIPs are allowed | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Migration Toolkit for Containers | Reporter: | Sergio <sregidor> |
Component: | General | Assignee: | John Matthews <jmatthew> |
Status: | CLOSED DEFERRED | QA Contact: | Xin jiang <xjiang> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | Avital Pinnick <apinnick> |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 1.3.0 | CC: | chezhang, dwhatley, dymurray, ernelson, fbladilo, jmatthew, jmontleo, jortel, rpattath, xjiang |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | 1.4.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: | 2021-04-08 02:54:29 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: |
Comment 1
Dylan Murray
2019-12-18 21:10:00 UTC
Okay, I have learned more and it appears that the migration here will succeed assuming the OCP4 cluster has been configured to allow for externalIPs. I was able to migrate a loadbalancer service to my OCP 4.2 cluster, but looking at the network configuration (Go to Administration->Cluster Settings->Global Configuration->Network) I do not have a configured `externalIP` policy: spec: clusterNetwork: - cidr: 10.128.0.0/14 hostPrefix: 23 externalIP: policy: {} networkType: OpenshiftSDN serviceNetwork: - 172.30.0.0/16 I migrated a loadbalancer service and our plugin properly cleared the `externalIPs` from the service so that the OCP4 cluster assigned the svc a new external IP. Sergio, could you please look at your cluster configuration on the target and see if it matches mine? I'm curious if different externalIP policies could be breaking this. If this is the case, we may need to solve this in the CPMA tool. Assuming that Sergio confirms this issue was related to a cluster configuration, I'd like to treat this BZ as a RFE to add more validations to CAM. Tracking this under an epic in JIRA: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/MIG-167 My initial thoughts are a validation at this level would require a different pattern than we've implemented up to now, I'm assigning this to next release as we build up more use-cases for expanded validation. Closing as this is quite old, and I expect that we'll continue to track this via the RFE Jira. The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 500 days |