Bug 1624069 - [RFE] Custom RHV Bond Naming
Summary: [RFE] Custom RHV Bond Naming
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager
Classification: Red Hat
Component: ovirt-engine
Version: 4.2.5
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ovirt-4.3.0
: ---
Assignee: Ales Musil
QA Contact: Michael Burman
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 1403653
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2018-08-30 20:14 UTC by Marcos Garcia
Modified: 2021-09-09 15:28 UTC (History)
10 users (show)

Fixed In Version: ovirt-engine-4.3.0_rc
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
This release supports custom Bond Naming in Red Hat Virtualization to include names with up to fifteen printable ASCII characters.
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2019-05-08 12:38:08 UTC
oVirt Team: Network
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
mburman: testing_plan_complete+


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Issue Tracker RHV-43590 0 None None None 2021-09-09 15:28:21 UTC
Red Hat Product Errata RHEA-2019:1085 0 None None None 2019-05-08 12:38:29 UTC
oVirt gerrit 95163 0 master MERGED backend, webadmin: Enable custom bond names 2020-02-03 13:03:24 UTC
oVirt gerrit 95454 0 master MERGED webadmin: Rephrase custom bond name error message 2020-02-03 13:03:25 UTC
oVirt gerrit 95671 0 master MERGED webadmin: Change the 'must' in the custom bond name 2020-02-03 13:03:25 UTC

Description Marcos Garcia 2018-08-30 20:14:39 UTC
(I am filing this BZ on behalf of a well intented customer who likes the product and believes this is an easy feature that will facilitate adoption in complex networks like a telco)

1.  What is the nature and description of the request?
Have the ability to use customized bond interface naming with the RHV self-hosted engine.  Currently, only bond names of bond0 through bond9 are supported, however we’d like to use names more reflective of the physical switch names that the bonds connect to (ie: bond_pn, bond_pf, bond_pb)

2.  Why does the customer need this? (List the business requirements here)
This aligns with our interface naming standards.  This eases alarming correlation and automation.

3.  How would the customer like to achieve this? (List the functional requirements here)
Answered in question 1

 4.  For each functional requirement listed, specify how Red Hat and the customer can test to confirm the requirement is successfully implemented. (RH will review this)
A successful implementation can be validated by using a bond name of bond_pn and having the self-hosted engine –deploy run through completion without error regarding the bonded interface name. 

5.  Is there already an existing RFE upstream or in Red Hat Bugzilla? (RH will review on your behalf)
I didn’t find any, but there may be one.

6.  Does the customer have any specific timeline dependencies and which release would they like to target (i.e. RHEL5, RHEL6)?
We are using RHV 4.1 so we hope this could be included in a future minor release (ie: 4.3 as I’ve noted 4.2 in beta already)

Comment 4 Michael Burman 2018-11-11 10:04:47 UTC
The format is: "bond" followed by any printable ASCII character (a-z A-Z 0-9 _).
Length is 15 characters max(currently, may be lower till 10 characters to support vlan networks on such bonds).

Comment 7 Michael Burman 2018-12-12 14:42:15 UTC
Verified on - 4.3.0-0.6.alpha2.el7

Comment 9 errata-xmlrpc 2019-05-08 12:38:08 UTC
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.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2019:1085


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.