Routed networks - - Add external gateways

[hjensas]

• Add's external_gateway_info to the provisioning router. Using the undercloud as the default router is not-practical when nodes are not on the same L2 network as the undercloud.
• Add a router for the public_net with external_gateway_info. TripleO Controller nodes use the External network as the default gateway, so this network also need external gateway info so that these nodes can reach external resources such as ntp servers, dnsservers etc.

UPDATE Also fixed-ip's required for the dhcp-relay instance provision interfaces.

(I closed PR #51 and fixed up my mistakes to avoid having commit's with silly mistakes. Hope I got it right this time. :) )

[cybertron]

Okay, I was thinking about this last night and I think we need to make it optional. The reason being that in some environments IPs on the external network are at somewhat of a premium, and this is doubling (or tripling for routed-networks) the number of IPs required there. In a CI environment that's significant, and even in some individual developer environments you may only have access to a single external IP.

What I'm thinking is that we go ahead and add the router for undercloud-networks-routed.yaml since it's required there, but we leave undercloud-networks.yaml alone and create a new undercloud-networks file that includes the router for non-routed cases. Or you could leave the latter to me since it's a general feature request not specific to this work.

How does that sound?

[hjensas]

That is a good point regarding use of external addressing.

I wonder, would it work to double NAT? I.e we already have a router on the private network with external_gateway_info, could we set the private net as the external_gateway network for the provisioning and public network routers and get away with using only the one External address?

UPDATE: -- Nope, this does not work since private_net is not an external network.

[hjensas]

So, I made some changes to the two commits and force pushed them. It uses a separate undercloud-network-public-router template for the non-routed use-case of deploying a public router. The undercloud-networks-routed still deploy the router by default.

Would be better to have the public router in a completely separate template and resource registry it to OS::Heat::None by default instead?

[cybertron]

So, I made some changes to the two commits and force pushed them. It uses a separate undercloud-network-public-router template for the non-routed use-case of deploying a public router. The undercloud-networks-routed still deploy the router by default.

Would be better to have the public router in a completely separate template and resource registry it to OS::Heat::None by default instead?

What you did is what I had in mind. If we find that the number of undercloud-networks templates starts exploding then maybe we'll need to decompose them, but these templates typically haven't changed that much (hence why they weren't customizable previously) so I don't expect a lot of trouble with that.

Monday I'll fire up a new test environment with this latest change and then we should be able to merge it. The changes all lgtm.