Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add static routes to netConfig to support scenario A #782

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

averdagu
Copy link
Contributor

@averdagu averdagu commented Jan 10, 2025

Adopting a workload using scenario A (different subnet ranges between wallaby CP and next-gen CP) wont succeed if netConfig doesn't have the routes to reach old CP.

Relates: OSPRH-7544

Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 10, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign archana203 for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

Adopting a workload using scenario A (different subnet ranges between
wallaby CP and next-gen CP) wont succeed if netConfig doesn't have the
routes to reach old CP.

Relates: OSPRH-7544
@averdagu averdagu force-pushed the feat/scenarioA-routes branch from 24b9574 to ff083d1 Compare January 10, 2025 15:58
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 10, 2025

@averdagu: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Required Rerun command
ci/prow/unit 24b9574 link true /test unit

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

Copy link

Build failed (check pipeline). Post recheck (without leading slash)
to rerun all jobs. Make sure the failure cause has been resolved before
you rerun jobs.

https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/rdoproject.org/buildset/96f987176e814792beedcd98d60c7eb5

✔️ noop SUCCESS in 0s
✔️ adoption-standalone-to-crc-ceph SUCCESS in 3h 01m 15s
adoption-standalone-to-crc-no-ceph RETRY_LIMIT in 48m 15s

@averdagu
Copy link
Contributor Author

recheck

Copy link

Build failed (check pipeline). Post recheck (without leading slash)
to rerun all jobs. Make sure the failure cause has been resolved before
you rerun jobs.

https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/rdoproject.org/buildset/7642f2ffde2146fbafd30cc22d1231a0

✔️ noop SUCCESS in 0s
✔️ adoption-standalone-to-crc-ceph SUCCESS in 3h 02m 42s
adoption-standalone-to-crc-no-ceph RETRY_LIMIT in 14m 15s

@@ -24,6 +24,9 @@ netconfig_networks:
start: 172.17.0.100
cidr: 172.17.0.0/24
vlan: 20
routes:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why we need to change defaults? should we apply this only for the envs where we need to modify it?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I thought that this won't affect on the default scenario, as this route is already added by system (since the interface belongs already to 172.17.0.0/24) and I didn't want to overengineer it). But I could modify it to only modify it in case it's the scenario A (though this may need some extra variable from install_yamls)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants