Fwd: [atomic-devel] recommending Flannel (w/ vxlan backend) for atomic -- thoughts?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Upstream discussion to try to figure out which tool to use to set up
networks for Atomic/Docker.

Thoughts, comments, suggestions?


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [atomic-devel] recommending Flannel (w/ vxlan backend) for
atomic -- thoughts?
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 14:36:03 -0500
From: John W. Linville <linville@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: atomic-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Greetings,

Internally we've been doing a little looking at projects for setting-up
overlay networks between minions in a Kubernetes cluster.  One of the
most interesting options has been Flannel (formerly Rudder).  Flannel
requires minimal configuration to slice a large subnet into a series of
smaller subnets, one per minion running flanneld.

Flannel uses a configuration stored as a JSON file in etcd.  The JSON
configuration looks a bit like this:

{
	"Network": "192.168.88.0/24",
	"SubnetLen": 28,
	"Backend": {
		"Type":	"vxlan"
	}
}

The above configuration would allow up to 16 minions to each allocate
a /28 subnet for use by their local docker daemon.  (Larger or smaller
subnets are, of course, a simple matter of configuration.)  The local
configuration information is written by flanneld to a file
under /var/run, and the info is used to pass the --bip option to docker
so that it configures its docker0 bridge appropriately.

Beyond that, the vxlan backend for flanneld on each minion creates a
vxlan tunnel endpoint and configures it to use the DOVE extensions for
routing.  The route to the larger (e.g. /24) subnet points at the vxlan
interface, so traffic to other minions is directed through it.  Such
traffic triggers L2MISS and L3MISS messages that are handled by
flanneld, directing traffic to the appropriate minions.

The result is a vxlan-based overlay network that enables connectivity
between all the minions (and their pods) with a minimal amount of
configuration required.  This seems like a powerful and usable means to
enable this communication.

Given the description above (and whatever other sources you might have
at your disposal), does anyone have any objections to using this as a
default Kubernetes networking solution in Atomic?  Or any questions
about the use of Flannel in general?

Thanks,

John
-- 
John W. Linville		Hope is a good breakfast, but it is a
linville@xxxxxxxxxx			bad supper. -- Sir Francis Bacon



-- 
Joe Brockmeier | Principal Cloud & Storage Analyst
jzb@xxxxxxxxxx | http://community.redhat.com/
Twitter: @jzb  | http://dissociatedpress.net/



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
cloud mailing list
cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora General Discussion]     [Older Fedora Users Archive]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Coolkey]     [Yum Users]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Apps]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]

  Powered by Linux