Template:

Networking Definition of Planned

Epic Template descriptions and documentation

Epic Goal

We have a request to support referring to VRFs by name in route definitions.

Why is this important?

VRF route table ids are dynamic and can change on reboot. This makes it very problematic to refer to a VRF in a route definition because it will periodically need to be updated to use the new id. It would be much better if there were a way to ensure the connection between routes and VRFs are always in sync.

Planning Done Checklist

The following items must be completed on the Epic prior to moving the Epic from Planning to the ToDo status

• Priority+ is set by engineering
• Epic must be Linked to a +Parent Feature
• Target version+ must be set
• Assignee+ must be set
• (Enhancement Proposal is Implementable
• (No outstanding questions about major work breakdown
• (Are all Stakeholders known? Have they all been notified about this item?
• Does this epic affect SD? {}Have they been notified{+}? (View plan definition for current suggested assignee)
  1. Please use the “Discussion Needed: Service Delivery Architecture Overview” checkbox to facilitate the conversation with SD Architects. The SD architecture team monitors this checkbox which should then spur the conversation between SD and epic stakeholders. Once the conversation has occurred, uncheck the “Discussion Needed: Service Delivery Architecture Overview” checkbox and record the outcome of the discussion in the epic description here.
  2. The guidance here is that unless it is very clear that your epic doesn’t have any managed services impact, default to use the Discussion Needed checkbox to facilitate that conversation.

Additional information on each of the above items can be found here: Networking Definition of Planned

Acceptance Criteria

• CI - MUST be running successfully with tests automated
• Release Technical Enablement - Provide necessary release enablement
  details and documents.

...

Dependencies (internal and external)

1.

...

Previous Work (Optional):

1. …

Open questions::

1. Do we want to implement vrfName in the route definition in NMState, or do we make the route table id explicit on the VRF definition side? The main thing influencing that will be whether the ids can change at runtime and whether we handle that correctly in Kubernetes-NMState. It's possible this will be the impetus to fix the lack of reconciliation in the operator. It may also be a moot point if the ids can't change after they're created.

Done Checklist

• CI - CI is running, tests are automated and merged.
• Release Enablement <link to Feature Enablement Presentation>
• DEV - Upstream code and tests merged: <link to meaningful PR or GitHub Issue>
• DEV - Upstream documentation merged: <link to meaningful PR or GitHub Issue>
• DEV - Downstream build attached to advisory: <link to errata>
• QE - Test plans in Polarion: <link or reference to Polarion>
• QE - Automated tests merged: <link or reference to automated tests>
• DOC - Downstream documentation merged: <link to meaningful PR>