This bug has been migrated to another issue tracking site. It has been closed here and may no longer be being monitored.

Red Hat Satellite engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on Satellite to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "Satellite project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs will be migrated starting at the end of May. If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "Satellite project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/SAT-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Bug 1935088 - [RFE] Support for provisioning over bond interfaces via satellite [NEEDINFO]
Summary: [RFE] Support for provisioning over bond interfaces via satellite
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED MIGRATED
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Satellite
Classification: Red Hat
Component: Provisioning Templates
Version: 6.8.0
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
urgent
medium with 1 vote
Target Milestone: Unspecified
Assignee: satellite6-bugs
QA Contact: Satellite QE Team
URL:
Whiteboard:
: 1942606 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2021-03-04 11:09 UTC by Satyajit Das
Modified: 2025-02-06 02:13 UTC (History)
22 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2024-06-06 00:47:43 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
bbuckingham: needinfo? (thadzhie)
fperalta: needinfo? (satellite6-bugs)

Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Foreman Issue Tracker 33246 0 None None None 2021-08-12 07:48:43 UTC

Description Satyajit Das 2021-03-04 11:09:49 UTC 
Description of problem:

Currently provisioning over bond interfaces via the satellite is not supported.

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

6.8

Actual results:

During the provision, the satellite fails to configure the bonding interface due to which the installation fails.

Expected results:

Make required changes in the KS-template, so that host can be provisioned over bond interfaces via the satellite and also include it in the supported scenarios for provisioning in the upcoming release of the satellite. 


Additional info:
Comment 16 Lukas Zapletal 2021-05-07 07:49:02 UTC 
*** Bug 1942606 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 17 Bryan Kearney 2021-05-09 16:22:05 UTC 
Moving this bug to POST for triage into Satellite since the upstream issue https://projects.theforeman.org/issues/31626 has been resolved.
Comment 21 Bryan Kearney 2021-08-02 16:04:36 UTC 
Moving this bug to POST for triage into Satellite since the upstream issue https://projects.theforeman.org/issues/31626 has been resolved.
Comment 22 Lukas Zapletal 2021-08-12 07:49:58 UTC 
> TRIAGE: Two small onelines in provisioning templates, zero risk, I propose 6.9.z.

Correction, Foreman needs to be aware of multiple slave interfaces (DHCP/TFTP), it is much more work than I initially thought. Made a new upstream ticket.
Comment 23 Lukas Zapletal 2021-08-12 07:55:10 UTC 
> TRIAGE: Two small onelines in provisioning templates, zero risk, I propose 6.9.z.

Correction, Foreman needs to be aware of multiple slave interfaces (DHCP/TFTP), it is much more work than I initially thought. Made a new upstream ticket.
Comment 48 Brad Buckingham 2023-03-06 11:37:55 UTC 
Upon review of our valid but aging backlog the Satellite Team has concluded that this Bugzilla does not meet the criteria for a resolution in the near term, and are planning to close in a month. This message may be a repeat of a previous update and the bug is again being considered to be closed. If you have any concerns about this, please contact your Red Hat Account team.  Thank you.
Comment 55 Brad Buckingham 2023-04-06 16:42:29 UTC 
As an update to comment 48, we are leaving this bugzilla open to get feedback from Satellite Product Management.
Comment 71 Shimon Shtein 2024-04-16 15:42:57 UTC 
A quick update: we have this upstream pr: https://github.com/theforeman/foreman/pull/9961 that should make network configuration more consistent between RHEL versions. I am also looking on other aspects of this issue to see what can be done in the short term.
Comment 72 Shimon Shtein 2024-04-18 11:43:38 UTC 
I will try to summarize the current state of things from engineering perspective:

We can split the network provisioning into three phases in context of network usage:
1. PXE/UEFI boot process
2. Fetching the operating system content for the installation process
3. Setting up the interfaces for the newly provisioned machine

As far as I can see phase 1 is currently not implemented and will require extensive research and work in the provisioning code base.

Phases 2 and 3 should be solved by https://github.com/theforeman/foreman/pull/9961 which uses Anaconda's native commands to set up the networking for phase 2 and 3. Additionally I have created an upstream issue https://projects.theforeman.org/issues/37363 to add more stability to the interface naming, especially during phase 2.

The work on 9961 is tracked in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2135787

While bonds are not officially supported, they are known to work with RHEL 7, and with 9961 they should be also fixed for RHEL 8 and 9. Unfortunately, according to the official support matrix (https://access.redhat.com/solutions/2674001) this use case is not yet fully tested.

Hope it makes things a bit more clear.
Comment 73 Francisco Peralta 2024-04-19 12:52:35 UTC 
(In reply to Shimon Shtein from comment #72)
> I will try to summarize the current state of things from engineering
> perspective:
> 
> We can split the network provisioning into three phases in context of
> network usage:
> 1. PXE/UEFI boot process
> 2. Fetching the operating system content for the installation process
> 3. Setting up the interfaces for the newly provisioned machine
> 
> As far as I can see phase 1 is currently not implemented and will require
> extensive research and work in the provisioning code base.
> 
> Phases 2 and 3 should be solved by
> https://github.com/theforeman/foreman/pull/9961 which uses Anaconda's native
> commands to set up the networking for phase 2 and 3. Additionally I have
> created an upstream issue https://projects.theforeman.org/issues/37363 to
> add more stability to the interface naming, especially during phase 2.
> 
> The work on 9961 is tracked in
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2135787
> 
> While bonds are not officially supported, they are known to work with RHEL
> 7, and with 9961 they should be also fixed for RHEL 8 and 9. Unfortunately,
> according to the official support matrix
> (https://access.redhat.com/solutions/2674001) this use case is not yet fully
> tested.
> 
> Hope it makes things a bit more clear.

Hi Shimon, 
 thanks a lot for the clarification and the upstream PR, I've seen it's already merged now (https://github.com/theforeman/foreman/pull/9961), could we foresee an ETA to have it working in a Satellite version? I would like to ask my customer to give it full run again for his deployments then.
 Also one think really makes me wonder is what you mentioned as Phase 1: my customer does mainly use PXE/UEFI boot process, recently I understood that they use the HTTPS BOOT feature to be precise, also part of UEFI. Now would we need to open another separate PR to have such boot process be supporting bonds (or the new mechanism that anaconda gives feedback about config if I understood that right)?
 Also for my personal understanding, is at the end of the process, one of those .nmconnection files created in the deployed OS then (I tried on my fedora just to better understand but bonds usually never show up in my /etc/NetworkManager/system-connections directory, only still in the /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts, but I might have done the bond in old/wrong stile though)?

Thanks in advance,
 Cisco.
Comment 77 Eric Helms 2024-06-06 00:47:43 UTC 
This BZ has been automatically migrated to the issues.redhat.com Red Hat Issue Tracker. All future work related to this report will be managed there.

Due to differences in account names between systems, some fields were not replicated.  Be sure to add yourself to Jira issue's "Watchers" field to continue receiving updates and add others to the "Need Info From" field to continue requesting information.

To find the migrated issue, look in the "Links" section for a direct link to the new issue location. The issue key will have an icon of 2 footprints next to it, and begin with "SAT-" followed by an integer.  You can also find this issue by visiting https://issues.redhat.com/issues/?jql= and searching the "Bugzilla Bug" field for this BZ's number, e.g. a search like:

"Bugzilla Bug" = 1234567

In the event you have trouble locating or viewing this issue, you can file an issue by sending mail to rh-issues. You can also visit https://access.redhat.com/articles/7032570 for general account information.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.