Bug 1116981
| Summary: | Rubygem-Staypuft: The networking terminology for Nova service configuration differs from packstack. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat OpenStack | Reporter: | Alexander Chuzhoy <sasha> |
| Component: | rubygem-staypuft | Assignee: | Scott Seago <sseago> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Omri Hochman <ohochman> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | Foreman (RHEL 6) | CC: | aberezin, beagles, mburns, nyechiel |
| Target Milestone: | ga | ||
| Target Release: | Installer | ||
| Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | ruby193-rubygem-staypuft-0.2.1.el6ost | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2014-08-21 18:04:57 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
Alexander Chuzhoy
2014-07-07 18:36:47 UTC
Staypuft descriptions sound more descriptive to me. Networking guys should weigh in. Nir, what do you think ? Those terms are so over used. Whatever we use, we need to make sure we are using it consistently. Since I am not an expert on nova networking I am adding Brent to take a look as well. Nir Russell/Brent, any comment here? (In reply to Alexander Chuzhoy from comment #0) > Rubygem-Staypuft: The networking terminology for Nova service configuration > differs from packstack. > > Environment: rhel-osp-installer-0.1.0-2.el6ost.noarch > > > Steps to reproduce: > 1. Start configuring a deployment with Nova network and reach the "Services > Configuration page". > > Result: > The person gets the following fields to configure: > Floating IP range for external network > Private IP range for tenant networks > > Expected result: > The fields should be more similar to their packstack equivalents. > In packstack we have: > # IP Range for network manager > CONFIG_NOVA_NETWORK_FIXEDRANGE=x.x.x.x > # IP Range for Floating IP's > CONFIG_NOVA_NETWORK_FLOATRANGE=x.x.x.x > > So the person configuring the networks can get confused. The discrepancy seems to be "Fixed" vs "Private". I believe "Fixed" is the more appropriate term to use here. It describes the range of IP addresses given to instances that are fixed (not able to float between instances). Note that there is no requirement that the range of fixed IP addresses be private. You could give a public range of IPs as your fixed addresses. Some public clouds do that, for example. So, I would recommend changing "Private" to "Fixed" in Staypuft. Thanks Russell. ack following Russell's feedback. Verified:rhel-osp-installer-0.1.9-1.el6ost.noarch It says now: Fixed IP range for tenant networks Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2014-1090.html |