Cloud provider: can't set Openstack LB endpoints to be Octavia using playbook

yboaron commented 5 years ago

Description

Provide a brief description of your issue here. For example:

The Openstack cloud provider Loadbalancer support both Neutron LBaaSv2 and Octavia. Currently, it is impossible to set Loadbalaber endpoint as Octavia using Openshift-ansible playbooks.

Version

ansible --version
ansible 2.5.11
  config file = /etc/ansible/ansible.cfg
  configured module search path = [u'/home/cloud-user/.ansible/plugins/modules', u'/usr/share/ansible/plugins/modules']
  ansible python module location = /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ansible
  executable location = /usr/bin/ansible
  python version = 2.7.5 (default, Sep 12 2018, 05:31:16) [GCC 4.8.5 20150623 (Red Hat 4.8.5-36)]

rpm -q openshift-ansible
openshift-ansible-3.11.44-1.git.0.11d174e.el7.noarch
(shiftstack) [cloud-user@bastion ~]$

Expected Results

Enables control of the following parameters (in addittion to openshift_cloudprovider_openstack_lb_subnet_id) in Openstack cloud provider Loadbalancer via ansible playbook:

Use Octavia: which OpenStack LBaaS endpoint (Octavia or Neutron LBaaS) should be used.

Floating IP network: the network ID in which floating IPs will be allocated from. If not specified, the first network that marked as external will be used.

codificat commented 5 years ago

I submitted #10758 a few days ago that is meant to address this, i.e. add options for use-octavia and floating IP network.

yboaron commented 5 years ago

@codificat - 10x for the update, I missed your PR. Ooops.., I also sent a patch to address this issue, https://github.com/openshift/openshift-ansible/pull/10763

I guess I can abandon my PR, and assign you to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1648972 Is it OK with you?

codificat commented 5 years ago

Thanks @yboaron - I'm fine dropping my PR and going for yours instead, whatever works best. Your PR seems to have some reviewers already so that's probably the best option.

I don't think I should take the bug though, I believe someone from the installer team should take it over instead.

Probably @sdodson can help us decide.

sdodson commented 5 years ago

/cc @tzumainn @luis5tb PTAL

luis5tb commented 5 years ago

Both PRs are pretty much the same. Based on @codificat suggestion, let's go for @yboaron's PR, ensuring it includes the var definition at roles/openshift_cloud_provider/defaults/main.yml.

Thanks @codificat! And please review @yboaron PR too!

openshift-bot commented 4 years ago

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.

Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle stale. Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close. Exclude this issue from closing by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

/lifecycle stale

openshift-bot commented 4 years ago

Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity.

Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle rotten. Rotten issues close after an additional 30d of inactivity. Exclude this issue from closing by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

/lifecycle rotten /remove-lifecycle stale

luis5tb commented 4 years ago

This was fixed in https://github.com/openshift/openshift-ansible/pull/10763

luis5tb commented 4 years ago

/close

openshift-ci-robot commented 4 years ago

@luis5tb: Closing this issue.

In response to [this](https://github.com/openshift/openshift-ansible/issues/10762#issuecomment-650958458): >/close Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [kubernetes/test-infra](https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/issues/new?title=Prow%20issue:) repository.

openshift / openshift-ansible