Comment 18 for bug 1760217

As per the above comment by Ram, this bug was supposed to take care of the K8s HA provisioning in cases where I intent to spawn contrail-kube-manager containers on multiple nodes:
```
instances:
  server1:
      ip: 10.0.0.4
      provider: bms
      roles:
          analytics: null
          analytics_database: null
          config: null
          config_database: null
          control: null
          kubemanager: null
          webui: null
  server2:
      ip: 10.0.0.5
      provider: bms
      roles:
          analytics: null
          analytics_database: null
          config: null
          config_database: null
          control: null
          kubemanager: null
          webui: null
  server3:
      ip: 10.0.0.6
      provider: bms
      roles:
          analytics: null
          analytics_database: null
          config: null
          config_database: null
          control: null
          k8s_master: null
          kubemanager: null
          webui: null
```

Right now, I am using a workaround by mentioning "k8s_master" as well on all the servers like:
```
```
instances:
  server1:
      ip: 10.0.0.4
      provider: bms
      roles:
          analytics: null
          analytics_database: null
          config: null
          config_database: null
          control: null
          k8s_master: null
          kubemanager: null
          webui: null
  server2:
      ip: 10.0.0.5
      provider: bms
      roles:
          analytics: null
          analytics_database: null
          config: null
          config_database: null
          control: null
          k8s_master: null
          kubemanager: null
          webui: null
  server3:
      ip: 10.0.0.6
      provider: bms
      roles:
          analytics: null
          analytics_database: null
          config: null
          config_database: null
          control: null
          k8s_master: null
          kubemanager: null
          webui: null
```

I am still facing the same issue if I don't use the workaround.
Please let me know if this bug takes care of above scenario or I need to raise a new one.