neutron

router.interface.{create|delete} notifications do not include the router or tenant IDs

Bug #1160431 reported by Eoghan Glynn
6
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
neutron
Fix Released
Wishlist
Eoghan Glynn
neutron 2013.2 "havana"
Grizzly
Fix Released
Wishlist
Gary Kotton
neutron 2013.1.1

Bug Description

The router.interface.{create|delete} notifications are intended to be consumed by ceilometer, but do not include the router or tenant IDs in the RPC message payload. Ceilometer requires both these data for metering purposes.

Now the _context_tenant_id and _context_project_id are added by the notification layer, so ceilometer could conceivably use these instead. However for consistency with the other notifications emitted by quantum, the tenant ID should be included as a first-class entry in the payload.

Also the resource ID should be provided in the payload, in this case set to the router ID.

See original description
Tags: l3-ipam-dhcp
Eoghan Glynn (eglynn)
Changed in quantum:
assignee: nobody → Eoghan Glynn (eglynn)
status: New → In Progress
Revision history for this message
OpenStack Infra (hudson-openstack) wrote : Fix proposed to quantum (master)

Fix proposed to branch: master
Review: https://review.openstack.org/25408

Eoghan Glynn (eglynn)
tags: added: grizzly-rc-potential
summary: - router.interface.{create|delete} notifications do not include the the
- router or tenant IDs
+ router.interface.{create|delete} notifications do not include the router
+ or tenant IDs
Nachi Ueno (nati-ueno)
Changed in quantum:
importance: Undecided → Wishlist
Eoghan Glynn (eglynn)
description: updated
Mark McClain (markmcclain)
tags: added: l3-ipam-dhcp
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
tags: added: grizzly-backport-potential
removed: grizzly-rc-potential
Revision history for this message
OpenStack Infra (hudson-openstack) wrote : Fix merged to quantum (master)

Reviewed: https://review.openstack.org/25408
Committed: http://github.com/openstack/quantum/commit/1daf927c9df046c17a8c3f07350f60cf488a4215
Submitter: Jenkins
Branch: master

commit 1daf927c9df046c17a8c3f07350f60cf488a4215
Author: Eoghan Glynn <email address hidden>
Date: Tue Mar 26 16:27:05 2013 +0000

    Add expected IDs to router.interface.* notifications

    Fixes bug 1160431

    The router.interface.{create|delete} notifications are intended to be
    consumed by ceilometer, but did not include the router or tenant IDs
    in the RPC message payload. Ceilometer requires both these data for
    metering purposes.

    The missing UUIDs are now provided in the notifications.

    Change-Id: I1ca6e1d5377100a0549293e0bdff0182711c750f

Changed in quantum:
status: In Progress → Fix Committed
Revision history for this message
OpenStack Infra (hudson-openstack) wrote : Fix proposed to quantum (stable/grizzly)

Fix proposed to branch: stable/grizzly
Review: https://review.openstack.org/26198

Revision history for this message
OpenStack Infra (hudson-openstack) wrote : Fix merged to quantum (stable/grizzly)

Reviewed: https://review.openstack.org/26198
Committed: http://github.com/openstack/quantum/commit/67292a7aac5f7eabc24f2d6d4fd5a8557dbe0068
Submitter: Jenkins
Branch: stable/grizzly

commit 67292a7aac5f7eabc24f2d6d4fd5a8557dbe0068
Author: Eoghan Glynn <email address hidden>
Date: Tue Mar 26 16:27:05 2013 +0000

    Add expected IDs to router.interface.* notifications

    Fixes bug 1160431

    The router.interface.{create|delete} notifications are intended to be
    consumed by ceilometer, but did not include the router or tenant IDs
    in the RPC message payload. Ceilometer requires both these data for
    metering purposes.

    The missing UUIDs are now provided in the notifications.

    Change-Id: I1ca6e1d5377100a0549293e0bdff0182711c750f

tags: added: in-stable-grizzly
Mark McClain (markmcclain)
Changed in quantum:
milestone: none → havana-1
Gary Kotton (garyk)
tags: removed: grizzly-backport-potential
Revision history for this message
Akihiro Motoki (amotoki) wrote :

In the patch merged, tenant_id is retrieved from subnet. Is it better to use tenant_id from the port (i.e., interface)?

In usual case, tenant_id of subnet and port are same, but when a network is shared, tenant_id of the port is different from tenant_id from the subnet. This notification is related to the router interface, so I think tenant of the interface is better.

Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Changed in quantum:
status: Fix Committed → Fix Released
Alan Pevec (apevec)
tags: removed: in-stable-grizzly
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Changed in neutron:
milestone: havana-1 → 2013.2
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.
Subscribing...

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.