Invalid baremetal network configuration in multi-rack environment

Bug #1539503 reported by Julia Aranovich on 2016-01-29
16
This bug affects 2 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Fuel for OpenStack
Medium
Aleksey Kasatkin
8.0.x
Medium
Fuel Documentation Team
Mitaka
Medium
Aleksey Kasatkin

Bug Description

STR on fake UI:

1) create environment with default wizard settings (Neutron VLAN networking)
2) go to Settings tab and enable Ironic in Additional Services section
3) go to Networks tab and check that baremetal network presented got default node network group. Baremetal network settings on UI are: CIDR, IP range, VLAN tagging
4) create a new node network group:

gateway appears among baremetal network settings for each node network group (I don't know, is it expected behaviour?)

5) make some valid change (uncheck vlan tagging for management network of the second node network group) and click Save Changes

Expected result: the network changes are saved successfully.

Actual result: there is an error message on the page:
"Gateway address belongs to the network's IP range [192.168.3.1-192.168.3.50]."
because of IP range of beremetal network in the second node network group is 192.168.3.1 - 192.168.3.50 and gateway is 192.168.3.1

So, when creating a new node network group, baremetal setting are invalid at the very beginning.

Also (please consider an attached screenshot): the error message gives no information about gateway and IP range of which network are intersected? In what node network group?
And gateways of all networks on the page are higlighted in red because of invalid Nailgun response when trying to save the changes:

{"message": "Gateway address belongs to the network's IP range [192.168.3.1-192.168.3.50].", "errors": [{"errors": ["gateway"], "ids": [1]}, {"errors": ["gateway"], "ids": [17]}, {"errors": ["gateway"], "ids": [18]}, {"errors": ["gateway"], "ids": [19]}, {"errors": ["gateway"], "ids": [21]}, {"errors": ["gateway"], "ids": [22]}, {"errors": ["gateway"], "ids": [23]}, {"errors": ["gateway"], "ids": [24]}, {"errors": ["gateway"], "ids": [26]}, {"errors": ["gateway"], "ids": [27]}]}

Ivan Ponomarev (ivanzipfer) wrote :

Please provide version of Fuel ISO

Changed in fuel:
assignee: nobody → Fuel Python Team (fuel-python)
importance: Undecided → High
milestone: none → 8.0
status: New → Incomplete
Julia Aranovich (jkirnosova) wrote :

It was reproduced on a fake environment, should be checked on ISO.

description: updated
Changed in fuel:
status: Incomplete → New
Julia Aranovich (jkirnosova) wrote :

According to https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1539561/comments/2 the root issue is that baremetal network should not even appear in a new node network group. Multi-rack is not supported for the baremetal yet.

Aleksey Kasatkin (alekseyk-ru) wrote :

Andrey Shestakov (SME in Ironic) told me that Ironic is OK with multi-rack but there should be only one (it can be shared or be configured in controllers group only) baremetal network in the environment. So, the easiest way is to have baremetal network shared between all node network groups. It is default behaviour for now, so it should just be documented.
To eliminate the issue with gateway the default IP range for baremetal network should be changed: it should start with 2 as gateway IP by default is always first IP of the network (now IP range starts with 1). It is not a critical issue though as user can do that by himself (via UI/CLI).

tags: added: area-ui
Ihor Kalnytskyi (ikalnytskyi) wrote :

Docs team is assigned, because we need to document that behaviour.

Julia Aranovich (jkirnosova) wrote :

Aleksey, see no action items for UI team according to your comment. Let me remove area-ui tag.

Also, this is still a bad UX to provide an invalid configuration to user (when IP range of baremetal network intersects with gateway in non-default network group), so I would fix it in Nailgun

tags: removed: area-ui

Why the issue on Fuel Documentation Team ?

tags: added: docs non-release
tags: added: release-notes

anyway it is medium bug, moved to MOS 8.0 updates because of HCF

tags: added: team-network

Unclear what is the document impact changed to Incomplete.

Aleksey Kasatkin (alekseyk-ru) wrote :

Svetlana,
Ironic works on multi-rack environment but there should be only one (it can be shared or be configured in controllers group only) baremetal network in the environment. So, the easiest way is to have baremetal network shared between all node network groups. It is default behaviour for now, so this should just be documented.

Fix proposed to branch: master
Review: https://review.openstack.org/301327

Changed in fuel:
status: Confirmed → In Progress

Reviewed: https://review.openstack.org/301327
Committed: https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/fuel-web/commit/?id=e03c35ef3d1cacabaecaf35683d6f12dee01d8e6
Submitter: Jenkins
Branch: master

commit e03c35ef3d1cacabaecaf35683d6f12dee01d8e6
Author: Aleksey Kasatkin <email address hidden>
Date: Mon Apr 4 23:16:11 2016 +0300

    Fix default IP range for baremetal network

    if IP ranges start with X.X.X.1 when gateway is not set explicitly
    it results in IP intersection if multiple node groups are in use because
    all networks must have gateways in this case and gateways are set to
    default values X.X.X.1 if they are missing for some networks

    Change-Id: Ia7c5a91526e706c5546f5cdc25ba2e945c5ae341
    Closes-Bug: #1539503

Changed in fuel:
status: In Progress → Fix Committed

Related fix proposed to branch: master
Change author: Evgeny Konstantinov <email address hidden>
Review: https://review.fuel-infra.org/22324

Reviewed: https://review.fuel-infra.org/22324
Submitter: Evgeny Konstantinov <email address hidden>
Branch: master

Commit: 12616554a46a3b751ced584026da92713d87c8ed
Author: Evgeny Konstantinov <email address hidden>
Date: Wed Jun 22 14:24:14 2016

Add Fuel resolved issues to 9.0

Change-Id: Id80cf3e87dda6aecd9bb845d75a65e23aeee2b3e
Related-Bug: #1439776
Related-Bug: #1539503

tags: added: release-notes-done
removed: release-notes
Alexey Stupnikov (astupnikov) wrote :

We no longer support MOS5.1, MOS6.0, MOS6.1
We deliver only Critical/Security fixes to MOS7.0, MOS8.0.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Duplicates of this bug

Other bug subscribers