Uploaded image for project: 'OpenShift SDN'
  1. OpenShift SDN
  2. SDN-4436

Support EgressIP feature with ETP=local

XMLWordPrintable

    • Icon: Epic Epic
    • Resolution: Done
    • Icon: Critical Critical
    • openshift-4.16
    • None
    • None
    • Support ExternalTrafficPolicy=Local with EgressIPs
    • False
    • None
    • False
    • Green
    • To Do
    • OCPSTRAT-1155 - Support EgressIP feature with ETP=local
    • 0% To Do, 0% In Progress, 100% Done
    • S
    • Hide

      [QE] Jun 20, 2024 YELLOW -  SDN-4558 will not be done before the end of this week. To be moved to 4.16 tech debt. Manual testing is complete. Delayed due to PR reviews.

      [QE] Jun 13, 2024 - e2e testing automation in progress. ETA end of next week.

      [QE] May 28, 2024

      Have done pre-merge testing based on PR https://github.com/openshift/ovn-kubernetes/pull/2151 and post-merge testing on nightly 4.16.0-0.nightly-2024-05-23-173505. No issue found for now.

      [QE]Mar 27, 2024

      No QE stories planned in Sprint 251

      Show
      [QE] Jun 20, 2024 YELLOW -  SDN-4558 will not be done before the end of this week. To be moved to 4.16 tech debt. Manual testing is complete. Delayed due to PR reviews. [QE] Jun 13, 2024 - e2e testing automation in progress. ETA end of next week. [QE] May 28, 2024 Have done pre-merge testing based on PR https://github.com/openshift/ovn-kubernetes/pull/2151 and post-merge testing on nightly 4.16.0-0.nightly-2024-05-23-173505. No issue found for now. [QE] Mar 27, 2024 No QE stories planned in Sprint 251
    • ---
    • 0
    • 0

      Template:

      Networking Definition of Planned

      Epic Template descriptions and documentation

      Epic Goal

      Support EgressIP feature with ExternalTrafficPolicy=Local and External2Pod direct routing in OVNKubernetes.

      Why is this important?

      We see a lot of customers using Multi-Egress Gateway with EgressIP. 

      Currently,  connections which reaches pod via the OVN routing gateway are send back via EgressIP if  it is associated with the specific namespace. 

      Multiple bugs have been reported by customers: 

      https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-16792 

      https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-7454

      https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-18400

      Also, resulting in filing RFE, as it was too complicated to be fixed via a bug.

      https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RFE-4614

      https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RFE-3944

      This is observed by multiple customers using MetalLB and F5 load balancers. We haven't really tested this combination.

      From the initial discussion, looks like the fix is needed in OVN. Request the team to expedite this fix, given it has bunch of customers hitting it.

      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. OVN team has to do https://issues.redhat.com/browse/FDP-42 and only then can we consume that into OVNKubernetes
      2. Design discussions Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VgDuEhkDzNOjIlPtwfIhEGY1Odatp-rLF6Pmd7bQtt0/edit 

      ...

      Previous Work (Optional):

      1. …

      Open questions::

      1. …

      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>

            sseethar Surya Seetharaman
            sseethar Surya Seetharaman
            Ying Wang Ying Wang
            Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            7 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: