Some ifupdown/bridge-utils parameters have no netplan equivalent

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Mike Pontillo <email address hidden>
wrote:

> Public bug reported:
>
> Comparing the `bridge-utils` parameters to the Netplan documentation, I
> found that the following parameters have no equivalent in `netplan`:
>
> bridge_gcint
>

This is a kernel limitation; it's not settable since 2.6 ish kernels; it's
droppable

> bridge_hw*
> bridge_maxwait
>

This is an ifupdown parameter; not clear this is needed for
networkd/network-manager

> bridge_portprio
>

This is settable in netplan

> bridge_ports**
> bridge_waitport
>

waitport is an ifupdown parameter, not clear this is needed in
networkd/network-manager

> *: This is the bridge MAC, which may be handled in a different bug.
> **: This one is handled separately already.
>
> I've pasted the full mapping below (FYI):
>
> # The keys in this dictionary match what is understood by ifupdown, via the
> # `bridge-utils` package. The values represent their netplan equivalents.
> #
> # Last updated:
> # bridge-utils_1.5-9ubuntu1 (man 5 bridge-utils-interfaces)
> # netplan git: e41215b (See doc/netplan.md)
> bridgeutils_to_netplan_bridge_params = {
> "bridge_ageing": "ageing-time",
> "bridge_bridgeprio": "priority",
> "bridge_fd": "forward-delay",
> "bridge_hello": "hello-time",
> "bridge_maxage": "max-age",
> "bridge_pathcost": "path-cost",
> "bridge_stp": "stp",
> # The following parameters are not documented or defined in Netplan:
> "brdige_maxwait": None, # Maximum time to wait for the bridge to be
> ready.
> "bridge_gcint": None, # Bridge garbage collection interval.
> "bridge_hw": None, # Bridge hardware address.
> "bridge_ports": None, # Bridge ports. (handled elsewhere)
> "bridge_portprio": None, # Bridge port priority.
> "bridge_waitport": None, # If specified, will wait for the bridge.
> }
>
> ** Affects: netplan
> Importance: Undecided
> Status: New
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to
> netplan.
> Matching subscriptions: netplan
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1671544
>
> Title:
> Some ifupdown/bridge-utils parameters have no netplan equivalent
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/netplan/+bug/1671544/+subscriptions
>

Thanks for the reply.

As for bridge_portprio, I saw the global bridge 'priority' key in the netplan docs, but not the per-port setting.

From `man 5 bridge-utils-interfaces`:

       bridge_portprio <port> <priority>
              set port priority, default is 128, affects
              port id, port is the name of the interface
              to which this setting applies.

Note also that the path cost is specified per-port in bridge-utils:

       bridge_pathcost port cost
              set path cost for a port, default is 100,
              port is the name of the interface to which
              this setting applies.

... it's not clear from the netplan docs how this translates; is the path cost set on every single port?

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Mike Pontillo <email address hidden>
wrote:

> Thanks for the reply.
>
> As for bridge_portprio, I saw the global bridge 'priority' key in the
> netplan docs, but not the per-port setting.
>

I've filed a bug for per-port priority

 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/systemd/+bug/1668347

> >From `man 5 bridge-utils-interfaces`:
>
> bridge_portprio <port> <priority>
> set port priority, default is 128, affects
> port id, port is the name of the interface
> to which this setting applies.
>
> Note also that the path cost is specified per-port in bridge-utils:
>
> bridge_pathcost port cost
> set path cost for a port, default is 100,
> port is the name of the interface to which
> this setting applies.
>
>
> ... it's not clear from the netplan docs how this translates; is the path
> cost set on every single port?
>

path_cost is per port, the format is

bridges:
  br0:
    interfaces: [eth0, eth1]
    parameters:
      path-cost:
         eth0: 70
         eth1: 60

And port-priority is the same, should work once networkd applies the setting

>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to
> netplan.
> Matching subscriptions: netplan
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1671544
>
> Title:
> Some ifupdown/bridge-utils parameters have no netplan equivalent
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/netplan/+bug/1671544/+subscriptions
>

OK, thanks.

Currently, path-cost is documented as a 'scalar' so this is probably just a doc fix then.

This is NOT a blocker for MAAS because we don't really have a way to let users set this. We store the ifupdown parameters in a dictionary so would currently only be able to do path-cost for a single port. ;-)