[RFE] Limit Geneve to within Neutron availability zones
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
networking-ovn |
Confirmed
|
Undecided
|
Unassigned | ||
neutron |
New
|
Wishlist
|
usha veepuri |
Bug Description
Creating multiple Neutron availability zones allows the operator to schedule DHCP and L3 agents within a single AZ. Neutron OVN will still try to form a Geneve mesh between all nodes in all availability zones, which creates inter-AZ dependencies and may not work when strict firewalls are placed between AZs.
Note that this RFE is a clone of https:/
This behavior should be configurable, so that L2 may be limited to a particular AZ, and no tunnels are formed between different AZs. This will prevent Neutron from trying to form tunnels when the tunnel cannot function, and may enhance security when AZs are in different security zones.
The desired end-state configuration would have separate DHCP and L3 agents hosted in each AZ, along with tunnels formed only inside the AZ. This would allow, for instance, multiple edge sites within a single deployment that each performed local networking only. Any particular Neutron network would be limited to one AZ. A new flag would allow AZs to be truly autonomous and remove cross-AZ dependencies.
Note that it appears that NSX-T has a concept called "Transport Zones" that enables the feature that is being requested here. Compute nodes within a given transport zone will only be able to communicate with compute nodes within that same transport zone. This prevents network traffic from being sent between zones. More information here:
NSX-T also supports Availability Zones, but it appears that those are separate from the Transport Zone functionality:
It's possible that limiting tunneling traffic to a particular AZ may be outside the intended functions of Neutron AZs, but I think this is a valid use case.
tags: | added: rfe |
Changed in neutron: | |
assignee: | nobody → usha veepuri (usha-veepuri) |
Changed in networking-ovn: | |
status: | New → Confirmed |
@usha veepuri,
Please note that this RFE has not been approved for implementation and even if it is, may require a spec. I strogly recommend holding of on any code implementation effort, unless you intend it as a PoC and are willing to discard it if the RFE doesn't get approved