Bug 1880507
| Summary: | [RFE] dnsmasq provided IP addresses should be converted to static for optimum resilience | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | OpenShift Container Platform | Reporter: | Chris Paquin <cpaquin> |
| Component: | Bare Metal Hardware Provisioning | Assignee: | Steven Hardy <shardy> |
| Bare Metal Hardware Provisioning sub component: | baremetal-operator | QA Contact: | Amit Ugol <augol> |
| Status: | CLOSED DEFERRED | Docs Contact: | |
| Severity: | unspecified | ||
| Priority: | unspecified | CC: | asegurap, brad, jhuddles, racedoro |
| Version: | unspecified | Keywords: | Triaged |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| 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: | 2020-09-24 13:57:50 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
Chris Paquin
2020-09-18 17:25:16 UTC
I'm not sure we want to add any interface that explicitly enables this, it seems like a workaround due to the limited OCP support for static IPs that exists today? I think this approach is risky (any misconfiguration resulting in a missing reservation could result in an IP conflict), and probably the choice should be to either use DHCP or static IPs, but we know there is work ongoing to enable the latter but there are significant gaps (no way at present to specify per-node config via the MCO). I know Toni and team have been looking at declarative network configuration (including support for static IPs, but only for secondary interfaces initially) - it seems like we should ensure we prioritize the more general requirement for static IPs in baremetal environments appropriately, which would avoid the need for this kind of workaround? Feature requests should be created in Jira, to be tracked and discussed there. (In reply to Steven Hardy from comment #1) > I'm not sure we want to add any interface that explicitly enables this, it > seems like a workaround due to the limited OCP support for static IPs that > exists today? > > I think this approach is risky (any misconfiguration resulting in a missing > reservation could result in an IP conflict), and probably the choice should > be to either use DHCP or static IPs, but we know there is work ongoing to > enable the latter but there are significant gaps (no way at present to > specify per-node config via the MCO). > > I know Toni and team have been looking at declarative network configuration > (including support for static IPs, but only for secondary interfaces > initially) - it seems like we should ensure we prioritize the more general > requirement for static IPs in baremetal environments appropriately, which > would avoid the need for this kind of workaround? So to clarify, I think that static IP addresses will be fine to meet the ask. Technically while we are using dnsmasq to assign DHCP addresses, the addresses are statically reserved anyway. I do see your point. If an ip address is assigned dynamically, and then moved to static, it must be moved out of the range of assignable ip addresses. Main concern from customer perspective is availability of dnsmasq and expiration of lease. dnsmasq is not HA solution, external dns provider is the best option. However, in the case of far-edge, dns services may not always be available. Just to confirm, that's only about the control plane network, right? Baremetal, not control plane. (In reply to Chris Paquin from comment #4) > (In reply to Steven Hardy from comment #1) > > I'm not sure we want to add any interface that explicitly enables this, it > > seems like a workaround due to the limited OCP support for static IPs that > > exists today? > > > > I think this approach is risky (any misconfiguration resulting in a missing > > reservation could result in an IP conflict), and probably the choice should > > be to either use DHCP or static IPs, but we know there is work ongoing to > > enable the latter but there are significant gaps (no way at present to > > specify per-node config via the MCO). > > > > I know Toni and team have been looking at declarative network configuration > > (including support for static IPs, but only for secondary interfaces > > initially) - it seems like we should ensure we prioritize the more general > > requirement for static IPs in baremetal environments appropriately, which > > would avoid the need for this kind of workaround? > > So to clarify, I think that static IP addresses will be fine to meet the > ask. Technically while we are using dnsmasq to assign DHCP addresses, the > addresses are statically reserved anyway. I do see your point. If an ip > address is assigned dynamically, and then moved to static, it must be moved > out of the range of assignable ip addresses. Ok thanks, so I think we should close this bz and track the requirement for static IPs as a core OpenShift enhancement - I'll take that up with PM. > Main concern from customer perspective is availability of dnsmasq and > expiration of lease. dnsmasq is not HA solution, external dns provider is > the best option. However, in the case of far-edge, dns services may not > always be available. That's an implementation detail of the customer environment, which as you say probably means static IPs would be preferable, so as above we can track that as an RFE in Jira. The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 1000 days |