[enhancement] Make gw optional for static routes

[Peter Sabaini]

Wishlist item: currently when adding a static route to a subnet specifying a gateway is mandatory.

For a specific project we'd need an additional directly connected net on a specific link. Being able to add a subnet route w/o gateway would be useful here.

Maas 2.3.3

[Blake Rouse (blake-rouse)]

Unless I am miss understanding this, I don't know if what your asking for is strait forward. If you are saying that you want to provide a static route to a specific interface of a machine, that will not work at the subnet level.

Currently static routes are defined at the subnet level not at a machine level. That will cause an issue of enabling this because interface names can be different depending on the deployed machine.

So setting this at the subnet level will not work.

[Peter Sabaini (peter-sabaini)]

Sorry for being unclear - I'm fine with letting Maas choose the device, same as it does currently when adding a static route. Just would like the option of not having to specify a gateway when creating a static route (defined at the subnet level, indeed).

Currently, a static route would result in a route with a via <gw>. I'd need a directly connected route, ie. one without a gw.

[Andres Rodriguez (andreserl)]

I think it should be possible to put this under a subnet, and if a machine
gets deployed with an interface in this subnet, this route, without
gateway, to be added.

This, however, may require some cloud-init work, for which we will have to
investigate.

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Peter Sabaini <email address hidden>
wrote:

> Sorry for being unclear - I'm fine with letting Maas choose the device,
> same as it does currently when adding a static route. Just would like
> the option of not having to specify a gateway when creating a static
> route (defined at the subnet level, indeed).
>
> Currently, a static route would result in a route with a via <gw>. I'd
> need a directly connected route, ie. one without a gw.
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to MAAS.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1775430
>
> Title:
> [enhancement] Make gw optional for static routes
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/maas/+bug/1775430/+subscriptions
>
> Launchpad-Notification-Type: bug
> Launchpad-Bug: product=maas; milestone=2.5.0; status=Triaged;
> importance=Undecided; assignee=None;
> Launchpad-Bug-Tags: canonical-bootstack internal networking
> Launchpad-Bug-Information-Type: Public
> Launchpad-Bug-Private: no
> Launchpad-Bug-Security-Vulnerability: no
> Launchpad-Bug-Commenters: blake-rouse peter-sabaini
> Launchpad-Bug-Reporter: Peter Sabaini (peter-sabaini)
> Launchpad-Bug-Modifier: Peter Sabaini (peter-sabaini)
> Launchpad-Message-Rationale: Subscriber (MAAS)
> Launchpad-Message-For: andreserl
>

--
Andres Rodriguez (RoAkSoAx)
Ubuntu Server Developer
MSc. Telecom & Networking
Systems Engineer

[Andres Rodriguez (andreserl)]

Hey Peter,

Could you please provide a few examples of how you currently configure these routes. Is the purpose of adding these route for link-local addresses or what are these typically used for?

[Peter Sabaini (peter-sabaini)]

We recently had the need to configure an additional directly connected network. These were non-link-local (but rfc1819) addresses.

The routing table on a node looked something like this:

$ ip r s
default via 123.1.1.1 dev br-bond0.201 onlink
10.0.184.0/24 dev lxdbr0 proto kernel scope link src 10.0.184.1
192.168.1.0/24 via 192.168.1.254 dev br-bond0
10.0.0.0/22 dev br-bond0 proto kernel scope link src 10.0.0.10
# ... more ifaces / nets

The "regular" / default net for br-bond0 being 10.0.0.0/22, but needing to reach other (directly connected peers) in the 192.168.1.0/24 subnet

Adding the 192.168.1.0/24 works fine, but ofc. I'd prefer to configure this via Maas.

[Adam Collard (adam-collard)]

This bug has not seen any activity in the last 6 months, so it is being automatically closed.

If you are still experiencing this issue, please feel free to re-open.

MAAS Team

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

[Expired for cloud-init because there has been no activity for 60 days.]

[James Falcon (falcojr)]

Tracked in Github Issues as https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/issues/3193