Gateway is missing in network definition

[Dean Henrichsmeyer]

One of the items needed for network definition is gateway. It's currently missing.

[Gavin Panella (allenap)]

Beret has asked for this. He's aware that a router IP can be specified for managed cluster networks, but he needs it for other networks too.

It may be worth modelling routers in general for each network.

I've marked this high but Beret may be able to guide us on that.

[Julian Edwards (julian-edwards)]

This needs some careful thought, as networks can have many gateways. I realise the bug asks for "default" gateway but it needs to be modelled correctly from the start with ipv6 in mind also.

[Dean Henrichsmeyer (dean)]

Default was the wrong description. A gateway for the network you're defining is what we're looking for. Thanks.

[Julian Edwards (julian-edwards)]

If we just implement the default gateway on the Network model for now, will that suffice for your needs? It means we can add other gateways later as they will need routing masks.

[Dean Henrichsmeyer (dean)]

Sorry, I guess I don't understand the comment. Are you saying we'll be able to provide a gateway for the network we're defining in MAAS (independent of the MAAS-managed network)?

Specifically, we expect users to define the public network that they're going to use for public services which will a majority of the time be independent of the MAAS-managed network. In that definition, a gateway is required in order to make it usable. We're not expecting MAAS to do anything with that network or gateway - only to make it accessible via the API.

Thanks.

[Julian Edwards (julian-edwards)]

On Thursday 28 Aug 2014 22:07:11 you wrote:
> Sorry, I guess I don't understand the comment. Are you saying we'll be
> able to provide a gateway for the network we're defining in MAAS
> (independent of the MAAS-managed network)?

Yes, that will be possible.

> Specifically, we expect users to define the public network that they're
> going to use for public services which will a majority of the time be
> independent of the MAAS-managed network. In that definition, a gateway
> is required in order to make it usable. We're not expecting MAAS to do
> anything with that network or gateway - only to make it accessible via
> the API.

I think what you describe is actually the default gateway.

Some networks will have more than one gateway if they are part of complex
routing, but there is only ever one default gateway, which is what 99.9% of
networks only have.

[Dean Henrichsmeyer (dean)]

OK, I get it now. You're saying only one gateway per network now, that works. :)

Thanks.

[Adam Collard (adam-collard)]

Can we get this backported to 1.6 series?

[Julian Edwards (julian-edwards)]

On Monday 01 September 2014 14:36:59 you wrote:
> Can we get this backported to 1.6 series?

Not easily, no, it contains a schema migration which depends on all the
previous schema migrations in trunk. South is a pain.

[Dean Henrichsmeyer (dean)]

We have to have this in 1.6 (we discussed this explicitly in Nuremberg). I understand it's a pain but I don't know of another option.

[Julian Edwards (julian-edwards)]

On Tuesday 02 September 2014 13:42:30 you wrote:
> We have to have this in 1.6 (we discussed this explicitly in Nuremberg).
> I understand it's a pain but I don't know of another option.

Was this specific gateway mentioned in Nuremberg? I only saw the request just
recently, and retrofitting schema changes is near impossible.

[Julian Edwards (julian-edwards)]

On Tuesday 02 September 2014 13:42:30 you wrote:
> We have to have this in 1.6 (we discussed this explicitly in Nuremberg).
> I understand it's a pain but I don't know of another option.

I'll discuss with a few people and see what options are available, if any.

[Julian Edwards (julian-edwards)]

Basically, there is no way to do this with the current schema migration technology that MAAS uses. The only thing I can think of is that you abuse the description field somehow until you start using 1.7.

[Adam Collard (adam-collard)]

Hi Julian,

Yeah it seems we're now going to be moving to 1.7 so the requirement for a backport is no more. We'll be steering clear of any hacks like encoding information in the description - clever though it is!

Adam