Re: [nmstate] [RFC] ip route partial editing vs whole-state editing

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 8:35 PM Till Maas <till redhat com> wrote:

Am Mi., 20. März 2019 um 18:13 Uhr schrieb Edward Haas via
networkmanager-list <networkmanager-list gnome org>:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 3:48 PM Gris Ge via networkmanager-list <networkmanager-list gnome org> wrote:
>> Hi Guys,
>> For the IP route editing in nmstate, the parietal editing is
>> problematic:
>> User case A:
>>     Current routes: via dev eth1
>>     Desired routes:         changed next hope to
>> User case B:
>>     Current routes: via dev eth1
>>     Desired routes:         add another route entry,
>>                    via dev eth1
>>                             for load balance.
>> With partial editing:
>>     For A), nmstate API user need to mark exiting routes as 'absent',
>>     then add new one.
>>     For B), nmstate API user just add new one.
>>     Pro:
>>         * It's easy for user to add new route entry with
>>           minimum/incremental data passing to nmstate API.
>>     Cons:
>>         * When editing certain entry, user need to search it from
>>           current state and mark it as absent. This adds a lot more
>>           works in API user.
>>         * The API is complexing the common user case -- editing route.
> A user will either persist the state he wants or read it when needed from nmstate.

users cannot persist the state they want in the current form because
they cannot express that everything that is not specified should be

Applications like oVirt does it by persisting the state they are interested in. The oVirt manager
is only concern about the networks it manages, not the one it does not.
It is not interested to manage or control the others and does not persist non interested entries.
(although it will show available resources to allow acquiring them into the pool if needed)

> At that moment, he can choose to remove and add or just add something new.
> I do not understand what complexity is there. We can easily provide SDK helpers to manipulate
> the state if that is what they need, after all, it is a dict/map.
> At the moment we do not focus on the SDK, but only on the raw API.
> With consumption, I am pretty sure we will be able to build a state sdk lib to ease user usage.
>> With full editing: API user just define what he/she wants.
>>     Pro:
>>         * It simple and clear to say in API document about route:
>>             You get what you asked, nothing else.
>>     Cons:
>>         * API user need to define the whole state, which might be
>>           a headache with 10k+ routes.
> Fetching and Setting back on each change from a remote client is very costly,
> consider a management system (the user/client) and hundreds of hosts, each with 10k entries.
> That does not scale well.

Nmstate does not provide a remote API only a local one. Whatever is
going to provide the remote API could also support partial states. Or
it can be an SDK as you call it.

It currently does not, but it must arrive in one form or the other if we want the api to be useful.
Adding another layer of abstraction is not something that makes sense to me,
I consider the nmstate API the one that applications should use, remotely or locally.

Nevertheless, this would keep the
core (hopefully) simpler.

We will still need to read the whole existing state, check if the request is possible, and
we will need to recreate the whole thing anyway.
There are even cases where the client is of an older version than the server, then the complementary config
action is needed anyway. In addition, parameters existing in the provider (NM) and not
in the state config we will have to treat like we do today (complement it, or not touch it).
I am not convinced it is simpler, it is just a new bunch or new cases to handle.
Finally, making it simpler for the core is a secondary objective. It needs to be simpler for the clients,
and taking oVirt as the first client example, it will not be simpler to use the full state.

Also it seems to me a lot easier to build
partial state handling on top of something that handles full states
than the other way around. If a program supports partial states, it
cannot distinguish them from full states.

My claim is that management systems are not all-or-nothing, they usually are interested
in managing only a partial config of all the available resources.
I am not exactly clear on why moving from partial to full is more trouble then from full to partial.
We do a version of it today:
new-full-state = show-full-state.update(partial-state)
(update like in a python dict, just recursive)

>> I personally favor the full editing staff and add below functions when
>> full editing is a real concern in the future:
>>     * nmstate.netapplier.add()              # Add new stuff
>>     * nmstate.netapplier.edit()             # Override existing stuff
>>     * nmstate.netapplier.remove()           # Remove stuff
>> Any comments and suggestions?
> Nmstate is intended to represent a declarative API, not a functional one.
> You could suggest that we need to have two versions of apply/set: Partial and Full.
> The same as we will probably need to support to versions of show (like netconf does): Config only, and Config + Read-Only(Oper State).
> We could also propose special magic entries, which represent a collection:
> - all-other <interfaces, routes, ip-addresses>
> - all-other interfaces of type ethernet
> But these are almost identical to the configuration policies which have been proposed through the kubernetes-nmstate project.
> I would prefer to have the partial state applied whenever it makes sense.
> I also think it is safer: As an example, VDSM controls only a portion of the host interfaces, it does not touch parts
> which have not been explicitly configured in the management system. This provides a flexibility to the host owner
> to manage it through two management systems: The oVirt one and the Host deployment one, each having their dedicated
> interfaces. When oVirt wants to define something on its owFor pned interfaces, it should not touch and risk the others.

How does this work with routes since they are not tied to an interface in oVirt?

The non interested routes will not get touched because they are of no interest to the management system.
The interface in my description was an example.

> The user should mention only the parts it is interested to change, anything else should not change.

It is a valid scenario. But the question is whether this needs to be
handled in the Nmstate core.

Yes, because it is something that has been requested and needed by the potential clients.
The ifcfg files and NM are an example of this: If it is not mentioned, it is not touched..

You should also consider this scenario which exist too frequent: Provisioning systems have an one direction flow,
they only set things and not query them. Without a query, the full state option will not work.

Kind regards

Till Maas
Ansible RHEL Networking System Role Maintainer
Red Hat GmbH

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