TripleO Routed Networks Deployment (Spine-and-Leaf Clos)

TripleO uses shared L2 networks today, so each node is attached to the provisioning network, and any other networks are also shared. This significantly reduces the complexity required to deploy on bare metal, since DHCP and PXE booting are simply done over a shared broadcast domain. This also makes the network switch configuration easy, since there is only a need to configure VLANs and ports, but no added complexity from dynamic routing between all switches.

This design has limitations, however, and becomes unwieldy beyond a certain scale. As the number of nodes increases, the background traffic from Broadcast, Unicast, and Multicast (BUM) traffic also increases. This design also requires all top-of-rack switches to trunk the VLANs back to the core switches, which centralizes the layer 3 gateway, usually on a single core switch. That creates a bottleneck which is not present in Clos architecture.

This spec serves as a detailed description of the overall problem set, and applies to the master blueprint. The sub-blueprints for the various implementation items also have their own associated spec.

Problem Description

Where possible, modern high-performance datacenter networks typically use routed networking to increase scalability and reduce failure domains. Using routed networks makes it possible to optimize a Clos (also known as “spine-and-leaf”) architecture for scalability:

,=========.                        ,=========.
| spine 1 |__                    __| spine 2 |
'==|\=====\_ \__________________/ _/=====/|=='
   | \_     \___   /       \  ___/     _/ |   ^
   |    \___ /    \ _______ /   \ ___/    |   |-- Dynamic routing (BGP, OSPF,
   |    /  \       /       \      /  \    |   v   EIGRP)
,------.    ,------       ,------.    ,------.
|leaf 1|....|leaf 2|      |leaf 3|....|leaf 4| ======== Layer 2/3 boundary
'------'    '------'      '------'    '------'
   |            |             |            |
   |            |             |            |
   |-[serv-A1]=-|             |-[serv-B1]=-|
   |-[serv-A2]=-|             |-[serv-B2]=-|
   |-[serv-A3]=-|             |-[serv-B3]=-|
       Rack A                     Rack B

In the above diagram, each server is connected via an Ethernet bond to both top-of-rack leaf switches, which are clustered and configured as a virtual switch chassis. Each leaf switch is attached to each spine switch. Within each rack, all servers share a layer 2 domain. The subnets are local to the rack, and the default gateway is the top-of-rack virtual switch pair. Dynamic routing between the leaf switches and the spine switches permits East-West traffic between the racks.

This is just one example of a routed network architecture. The layer 3 routing could also be done only on the spine switches, or there may even be distribution level switches that sit in between the top-of-rack switches and the routed core. The distinguishing feature that we are trying to enable is segregating local systems within a layer 2 domain, with routing between domains.

In a shared layer-2 architecture, the spine switches typically have to act in an active/passive mode to act as the L3 gateway for the single shared VLAN. All leaf switches must be attached to the active switch, and the limit on North-South bandwidth is the connection to the active switch, so there is an upper bound on the scalability. The Clos topology is favored because it provides horizontal scalability. Additional spine switches can be added to increase East-West and North-South bandwidth. Equal-cost multipath routing between switches ensures that all links are utlized simultaneously. If all ports are full on the spine switches, an additional tier can be added to connect additional spines, each with their own set of leaf switches, providing hyperscale expandability.

Each network device may be taken out of service for maintenance without the entire network being offline. This topology also allows the switches to be configured without physical loops or Spanning Tree, since the redundant links are either delivered via bonding or via multiple layer 3 uplink paths with equal metrics. Some advantages of using this architecture with separate subnets per rack are:

  • Reduced domain for broadcast, unknown unicast, and multicast (BUM) traffic.
  • Reduced failure domain.
  • Geographical separation.
  • Association between IP address and rack location.
  • Better cross-vendor support for multipath forwarding using equal-cost multipath forwarding (ECMP) via L3 routing, instead of proprietary “fabric”.

This topology is significantly different from the shared-everything approach that TripleO takes today.

Problem Descriptions

As this is a complex topic, it will be easier to break the problems down into their constituent parts, based on which part of TripleO they affect:

Problem #1: TripleO uses DHCP/PXE on the Undercloud provisioning net (ctlplane).

Neutron on the undercloud does not yet support DHCP relays and multiple L2 subnets, since it does DHCP/PXE directly on the provisioning network.

Possible Solutions, Ideas, or Approaches:

  1. Modify Ironic and/or Neutron to support multiple DHCP ranges in the dnsmasq configuration, use DHCP relay running on top-of-rack switches which receives DHCP requests and forwards them to dnsmasq on the Undercloud. There is a patch in progress to support that [11].
  2. Modify Neutron to support DHCP relay. There is a patch in progress to support that [10].

Currently, if one adds a subnet to a network, Neutron DHCP agent will pick up the changes and configure separate subnets correctly in dnsmasq. For instance, after adding a second subnet to the ctlplane network, here is the resulting startup command for Neutron’s instance of dnsmasq:

dnsmasq --no-hosts --no-resolv --strict-order --except-interface=lo \
--pid-file=/var/lib/neutron/dhcp/aae53442-204e-4c8e-8a84-55baaeb496cf/pid \
--dhcp-hostsfile=/var/lib/neutron/dhcp/aae53442-204e-4c8e-8a84-55baaeb496cf/host \
--addn-hosts=/var/lib/neutron/dhcp/aae53442-204e-4c8e-8a84-55baaeb496cf/addn_hosts \
--dhcp-optsfile=/var/lib/neutron/dhcp/aae53442-204e-4c8e-8a84-55baaeb496cf/opts \
--dhcp-leasefile=/var/lib/neutron/dhcp/aae53442-204e-4c8e-8a84-55baaeb496cf/leases \
--dhcp-match=set:ipxe,175 --bind-interfaces --interface=tap4ccef953-e0 \
--dhcp-range=set:tag0,,static,86400s \
--dhcp-range=set:tag1,,static,86400s \
--dhcp-option-force=option:mtu,1500 --dhcp-lease-max=512 \
--conf-file=/etc/dnsmasq-ironic.conf --domain=openstacklocal

The router information gets put into the dhcp-optsfile, here are the contents of /var/lib/neutron/dhcp/aae53442-204e-4c8e-8a84-55baaeb496cf/opts:


The above options file will result in separate routers being handed out to separate IP subnets. Furthermore, Neutron appears to “do the right thing” with regard to routes for other subnets on the same network. We can see that the option “classless-static-route” is given, with pointers to both the default route and the other subnet(s) on the same Neutron network.

In order to modify Ironic-Inspector to use multiple subnets, we will need to extend instack-undercloud to support network segments. There is a patch in review to support segments in instack undercloud [0].

Potential Workaround

One possibility is to use an alternate method to DHCP/PXE boot, such as using DHCP configuration directly on the router, or to configure a host on the remote network which provides DHCP and PXE URLs, then provides routes back to the ironic-conductor and metadata server as part of the DHCP response.

It is not always feasible for groups doing testing or development to configure DHCP relay on the switches. For proof-of-concept implementations of spine-and-leaf, we may want to configure all provisioning networks to be trunked back to the Undercloud. This would allow the Undercloud to provide DHCP for all networks without special switch configuration. In this case, the Undercloud would act as a router between subnets/VLANs. This should be considered a small-scale solution, as this is not as scalable as DHCP relay. The configuration file for dnsmasq is the same whether all subnets are local or remote, but dnsmasq may have to listen on multiple interfaces (today it only listens on br-ctlplane). The dnsmasq process currently runs with --bind-interface=tap-XXX, but the process will need to be run with either binding to multiple interfaces, or with --except-interface=lo and multiple interfaces bound to the namespace.

For proof-of-concept deployments, as well as testing environments, it might make sense to run a DHCP relay on the Undercloud, and trunk all provisioning VLANs back to the Undercloud. This would allow dnsmasq to listen on the tap interface, and DHCP requests would be forwarded to the tap interface. The downside of this approach is that the Undercloud would need to have IP addresses on each of the trunked interfaces.

Another option is to configure dedicated hosts or VMs to be used as DHCP relay and router for subnets on multiple VLANs, all of which would be trunked to the relay/router host, thus acting exactly like routing switches.

**Problem #2: Neutron’s model for a segmented network that spans multiple L2 domains uses the segment object to allow multiple subnets to be assigned to the same network. This functionality needs to be integrated into the Undercloud.

Possible Solutions, Ideas, or Approaches:

  1. Implement Neutron segments on the undercloud.

The spec for Neutron routed network segments [1] provides a schema that we can use to model a routed network. By implementing support for network segments, we can provide assign Ironic nodes to networks on routed subnets. This allows us to continue to use Neutron for IP address management, as ports are assigned by Neutron and tracked in the Neutron database on the Undercloud. See approach #1 below.

  1. Multiple Neutron networks (1 set per rack), to model all L2 segments.

By using a different set of networks in each rack, this provides us with the flexibility to use different network architectures on a per-rack basis. Each rack could have its own set of networks, and we would no longer have to provide all networks in all racks. Additionally, a split-datacenter architecture would naturally have a different set of networks in each site, so this approach makes sense. This is detailed in approach #2 below.

  1. Multiple subnets per Neutron network.

This is probably the best approach for provisioning, since Neutron is already able to handle DHCP relay with multiple subnets as part of the same network. Additionally, this allows a clean separation between local subnets associated with provisioning, and networks which are used in the overcloud, such as External networks in two different datacenters). This is covered in more detail in approach #3 below.

  1. Use another system for IPAM, instead of Neutron.

Although we could use a database, flat file, or some other method to keep track of IP addresses, Neutron as an IPAM back-end provides many integration benefits. Neutron integrates DHCP, hardware switch port configuration (through the use of plugins), integration in Ironic, and other features such as IPv6 support. This has been deemed to be infeasible due to the level of effort required in replacing both Neutron and the Neutron DHCP server (dnsmasq).

Approaches to Problem #2:

Approach 1 (Implement Neutron segments on the Undercloud):

The Neutron segments model provides a schema in Neutron that allows us to model the routed network. Using multiple subnets provides the flexibility we need without creating exponentially more resources. We would create the same provisioning network that we do today, but use multiple segments associated to different routed subnets. The disadvantage to this approach is that it makes it impossible to represent network VLANs with more than one IP subnet (Neutron technically supports more than one subnet per port). Currently TripleO only supports a single subnet per isolated network, so this should not be an issue.

Approach 2 (Multiple Neutron networks (1 set per rack), to model all L2 segments):

We will be using multiple networks to represent isolated networks in multiple L2 domains. One sticking point is that although Neutron will configure multiple routes for multiple subnets within a given network, we need to be able to both configure static IPs and routes, and be able to scale the network by adding additional subnets after initial deployment.

Since we control addresses and routes on the host nodes using a combination of Heat templates and os-net-config, it is possible to use static routes to supernets to provide L2 adjacency. This approach only works for non-provisioning networks, since we rely on Neutron DHCP servers providing routes to adjacent subnets for the provisioning network.

Example: Suppose 2 subnets are provided for the Internal API network: and We want all Internal API traffic to traverse the Internal API VLANs on both the controller and a remote compute node. The Internal API network uses different VLANs for the two nodes, so we need the routes on the hosts to point toward the Internal API gateway instead of the default gateway. This can be provided by a supernet route to 172.19.x.x pointing to the local gateway on each subnet (e.g. and on the respective subnets). This could be represented in os-net-config with the following:

  type: interface
  name: nic3
      ip_netmask: {get_param: InternalApiIpSubnet}
      ip_netmask: {get_param: InternalApiSupernet}
      next_hop: {get_param: InternalApiRouter}

Where InternalApiIpSubnet is the IP address on the local subnet, InternalApiSupernet is ‘’, and InternalApiRouter is either or depending on which local subnet the host belongs to.

The end result of this is that each host has a set of IP addresses and routes that isolate traffic by function. In order for the return traffic to also be isolated by function, similar routes must exist on both hosts, pointing to the local gateway on the local subnet for the larger supernet that contains all Internal API subnets.

The downside of this is that we must require proper supernetting, and this may lead to larger blocks of IP addresses being used to provide ample space for scaling growth. For instance, in the example above an entire /16 network is set aside for up to 255 local subnets for the Internal API network. This could be changed into a more reasonable space, such as /18, if the number of local subnets will not exceed 64, etc. This will be less of an issue with native IPv6 than with IPv4, where scarcity is much more likely.

Approach 3 (Multiple subnets per Neutron network):

The approach we will use for the provisioning network will be to use multiple subnets per network, using Neutron segments. This will allow us to take advantage of Neutron’s ability to support multiple networks with DHCP relay. The DHCP server will supply the necessary routes via DHCP until the nodes are configured with a static IP post-deployment.

Problem #3: Ironic introspection DHCP doesn’t yet support DHCP relay

This makes it difficult to do introspection when the hosts are not on the same L2 domain as the controllers. Patches are either merged or in review to support DHCP relay.

Possible Solutions, Ideas, or Approaches:

  1. A patch to support a dnsmasq PXE filter driver has been merged. This will allow us to support selective DHCP when using DHCP relay (where the packet is not coming from the MAC of the host but rather the MAC of the switch) [12].
  2. A patch has been merged to puppet-ironic to support multiple DHCP subnets for Ironic Inspector [13].
  3. A patch is in review to add support for multiple subnets for the provisioning network in the instack-undercloud scripts [14].

For more information about solutions, please refer to the tripleo-routed-networks-ironic-inspector blueprint [5] and spec [6].

Problem #4: The IP addresses on the provisioning network need to be static IPs for production.

Possible Solutions, Ideas, or Approaches:

  1. Dan Prince wrote a patch [9] in Newton to convert the ctlplane network addresses to static addresses post-deployment. This will need to be refactored to support multiple provisioning subnets across routers.

Solution Implementation

This work is done and merged for the legacy use case. During the initial deployment, the nodes receive their IP address via DHCP, but during Heat deployment the os-net-config script is called, which writes static configuration files for the NICs with static IPs.

This work will need to be refactored to support assigning IPs from the appropriate subnet, but the work will be part of the TripleO Heat Template refactoring listed in Problems #6, and #7 below.

For the deployment model where the IPs are specified (ips-from-pool-all.yaml), we need to develop a model where the Control Plane IP can be specified on multiple deployment subnets. This may happen in a later cycle than the initial work being done to enable routed networks in TripleO. For more information, reference the tripleo-predictable-ctlplane-ips blueprint [7] and spec [8].

Problem #5: Heat Support For Routed Networks

The Neutron routed networks extensions were only added in recent releases, and there was a dependency on TripleO Heat Templates.

Possible Solutions, Ideas or Approaches:

  1. Add the required objects to Heat. At minimum, we will probably have to add OS::Neutron::Segment, which represents layer 2 segments, the OS::Neutron::Network will be updated to support the l2-adjacency attribute, OS::Neutron::Subnet and OS::Neutron:port would be extended to support the segment_id attribute.

Solution Implementation:

Heat now supports the OS::Neutron::Segment resource. For example:

heat_template_version: 2015-04-30
    type: OS::Neutron::Segment
      description: String
      name: String
      network: String
      network_type: String
      physical_network: String
      segmentation_id: Integer

This work has been completed in Heat with this review [15].

Problem #6: Static IP assignment: Choosing static IPs from the correct subnet

Some roles, such as Compute, can likely be placed in any subnet, but we will need to keep certain roles co-located within the same set of L2 domains. For instance, whatever role is providing Neutron services will need all controllers in the same L2 domain for VRRP to work properly.

The network interfaces will be configured using templates that create configuration files for os-net-config. The IP addresses that are written to each node’s configuration will need to be on the correct subnet for each host. In order for Heat to assign ports from the correct subnets, we will need to have a host-to-subnets mapping.

Possible Solutions, Ideas or Approaches:

  1. The simplest implementation of this would probably be a mapping of role/index to a set of subnets, so that it is known to Heat that Controller-1 is in subnet set X and Compute-3 is in subnet set Y.
  2. We could associate particular subnets with roles, and then use one role per L2 domain (such as per-rack).
  3. The roles and templates should be refactored to allow for dynamic IP assignment within subnets associated with the role. We may wish to evaluate the possibility of storing the routed subnets in Neutron using the routed networks extensions that are still under development. This would provide additional flexibility, but is probably not required to implement separate subnets in each rack.
  4. A scalable long-term solution is to map which subnet the host is on during introspection. If we can identify the correct subnet for each interface, then we can correlate that with IP addresses from the correct allocation pool. This would have the advantage of not requiring a static mapping of role to node to subnet. In order to do this, additional integration would be required between Ironic and Neutron (to make Ironic aware of multiple subnets per network, and to add the ability to make that association during introspection).

Solution Impelementation:

Solutions 1 and 2 above have been implemented in the “composable roles” series of patches [16]. The initial implementation uses separate Neutron networks for different L2 domains. These templates are responsible for assigning the isolated VLANs used for data plane and overcloud control planes, but does not address the provisioning network. Future work may refactor the non-provisioning networks to use segments, but for now non-provisioning networks must use different networks for different roles.

Ironic autodiscovery may allow us to determine the subnet where each node is located without manual entry. More work is required to automate this process.

Problem #7: Isolated Networking Requires Static Routes to Ensure Correct VLAN is Used

In order to continue using the Isolated Networks model, routes will need to be in place on each node, to steer traffic to the correct VLAN interfaces. The routes are written when os-net-config first runs, but may change. We can’t just rely on the specific routes to other subnets, since the number of subnets will increase or decrease as racks are added or taken away. Rather than try to deal with constantly changing routes, we should use static routes that will not need to change, to avoid disruption on a running system.

Possible Solutions, Ideas or Approaches:

  1. Require that supernets are used for various network groups. For instance, all the Internal API subnets would be part of a supernet, for instance could be used, and broken up into many smaller subnets, such as /24. This would simplify the routes, since only a single route for would be required pointing to the local router on the 172.17.x.0/24 network.
  2. Modify os-net-config so that routes can be updated without bouncing interfaces, and then run os-net-config on all nodes when scaling occurs. A review for this functionality was considered and abandeded [3]. The patch was determined to have the potential to lead to instability.

os-net-config configures static routes for each interface. If we can keep the routing simple (one route per functional network), then we would be able to isolate traffic onto functional VLANs like we do today.

It would be a change to the existing workflow to have os-net-config run on updates as well as deployment, but if this were a non-impacting event (the interfaces didn’t have to be bounced), that would probably be OK.

At a later time, the possibility of using dynamic routing should be considered, since it reduces the possibility of user error and is better suited to centralized management. SDN solutions are one way to provide this, or other approaches may be considered, such as setting up OVS tunnels.

Proposed Change

The proposed changes are discussed below.


In order to provide spine-and-leaf networking for deployments, several changes will have to be made to TripleO:

  1. Support for DHCP relay in Ironic and Neutron DHCP servers. Implemented in patch [15] and the patch series [17].
  2. Refactoring of TripleO Heat Templates network isolation to support multiple subnets per isolated network, as well as per-subnet and supernet routes. The bulk of this work is done in the patch series [16] and in patch [10].
  3. Changes to Infra CI to support testing.
  4. Documentation updates.


The approach outlined here is very prescriptive, in that the networks must be known ahead of time, and the IP addresses must be selected from the appropriate pool. This is due to the reliance on static IP addresses provided by Heat.

One alternative approach is to use DHCP servers to assign IP addresses on all hosts on all interfaces. This would simplify configuration within the Heat templates and environment files. Unfortunately, this was the original approach of TripleO, and it was deemed insufficient by end-users, who wanted stability of IP addresses, and didn’t want to have an external dependency on DHCP.

Another approach is to use the DHCP server functionality in the network switch infrastructure in order to PXE boot systems, then assign static IP addresses after the PXE boot is done via DHCP. This approach only solves for part of the requirement: the net booting. It does not solve the desire to have static IP addresses on each network. This could be achieved by having static IP addresses in some sort of per-node map. However, this approach is not as scalable as programatically determining the IPs, since it only applies to a fixed number of hosts. We want to retain the ability of using Neutron as an IP address management (IPAM) back-end, ideally.

Another approach which was considered was simply trunking all networks back to the Undercloud, so that dnsmasq could respond to DHCP requests directly, rather than requiring a DHCP relay. Unfortunately, this has already been identified as being unacceptable by some large operators, who have network architectures that make heavy use of L2 segregation via routers. This also won’t work well in situations where there is geographical separation between the VLANs, such as in split-site deployments.

Security Impact

One of the major differences between spine-and-leaf and standard isolated networking is that the various subnets are connected by routers, rather than being completely isolated. This means that without proper ACLs on the routers, networks which should be private may be opened up to outside traffic.

This should be addressed in the documentation, and it should be stressed that ACLs should be in place to prevent unwanted network traffic. For instance, the Internal API network is sensitive in that the database and message queue services run on that network. It is supposed to be isolated from outside connections. This can be achieved fairly easily if supernets are used, so that if all Internal API subnets are a part of the supernet, an ACL rule will allow only traffic between Internal API IPs (this is a simplified example that could be applied to any Internal API VLAN, or as a global ACL):

allow traffic from to
deny traffic from * to

Other End User Impact

Deploying with spine-and-leaf will require additional parameters to provide the routing information and multiple subnets required. This will have to be documented. Furthermore, the validation scripts may need to be updated to ensure that the configuration is validated, and that there is proper connectivity between overcloud hosts.

Performance Impact

Much of the traffic that is today made over layer 2 will be traversing layer 3 routing borders in this design. That adds some minimal latency and overhead, although in practice the difference may not be noticeable. One important consideration is that the routers must not be too overcommitted on their uplinks, and the routers must be monitored to ensure that they are not acting as a bottleneck, especially if complex access control lists are used.

Other Deployer Impact

A spine-and-leaf deployment will be more difficult to troubleshoot than a deployment that simply uses a set of VLANs. The deployer may need to have more network expertise, or a dedicated network engineer may be needed to troubleshoot in some cases.

Developer Impact

Spine-and-leaf is not easily tested in virt environments. This should be possible, but due to the complexity of setting up libvirt bridges and routes, we may want to provide a simulation of spine-and-leaf for use in virtual environments. This may involve building multiple libvirt bridges and routing between them on the Undercloud, or it may involve using a DHCP relay on the virt-host as well as routing on the virt-host to simulate a full routing switch. A plan for development and testing will need to be developed, since not every developer can be expected to have a routed environment to work in. It may take some time to develop a routed virtual environment, so initial work will be done on bare metal.



Primary assignee:
Dan Sneddon <>


Primary approver:
Emilien Macchi <>

Work Items

  1. Add static IP assignment to Control Plane [DONE]
  2. Modify Ironic Inspector dnsmasq.conf generation to allow export of multiple DHCP ranges, as described in Problem #1 and Problem #3.
  3. Evaluate the Routed Networks work in Neutron, to determine if it is required for spine-and-leaf, as described in Problem #2.
  4. Add OS::Neutron::Segment and l2-adjacency support to Heat, as described in Problem #5. This may or may not be a dependency for spine-and-leaf, based on the results of work item #3.
  5. Modify the Ironic-Inspector service to record the host-to-subnet mappings, perhaps during introspection, to address Problem #6.
  6. Add parameters to Isolated Networking model in Heat to support supernet routes for individual subnets, as described in Problem #7.
  7. Modify Isolated Networking model in Heat to support multiple subnets, as described in Problem #8.
  8. Add support for setting routes to supernets in os-net-config NIC templates, as described in the proposed solution to Problem #2.
  9. Implement support for iptables on the Controller, in order to mitigate the APIs potentially being reachable via remote routes. Alternatively, document the mitigation procedure using ACLs on the routers.
  10. Document the testing procedures.
  11. Modify the documentation in tripleo-docs to cover the spine-and-leaf case.

Implementation Details


  1. Operator configures DHCP networks and IP address ranges
  2. Operator imports baremetal instackenv.json
  3. When introspection or deployment is run, the DHCP server receives the DHCP request from the baremetal host via DHCP relay
  4. If the node has not been introspected, reply with an IP address from the introspection pool* and the inspector PXE boot image
  5. If the node already has been introspected, then the server assumes this is a deployment attempt, and replies with the Neutron port IP address and the overcloud-full deployment image
  6. The Heat templates are processed which generate os-net-config templates, and os-net-config is run to assign static IPs from the correct subnets, as well as routes to other subnets via the router gateway addresses.
  • The introspection pool will be different for each provisioning subnet.

When using spine-and-leaf, the DHCP server will need to provide an introspection IP address on the appropriate subnet, depending on the information contained in the DHCP relay packet that is forwarded by the segment router. dnsmasq will automatically match the gateway address (GIADDR) of the router that forwarded the request to the subnet where the DHCP request was received, and will respond with an IP and gateway appropriate for that subnet.

The above workflow for the DHCP server should allow for provisioning IPs on multiple subnets.


There may be a dependency on the Neutron Routed Networks. This won’t be clear until a full evaluation is done on whether we can represent spine-and-leaf using only multiple subnets per network.

There will be a dependency on routing switches that perform DHCP relay service for production spine-and-leaf deployments.


In order to properly test this framework, we will need to establish at least one CI test that deploys spine-and-leaf. As discussed in this spec, it isn’t necessary to have a full routed bare metal environment in order to test this functionality, although there is some work to get it working in virtual environments such as OVB.

For bare metal testing, it is sufficient to trunk all VLANs back to the Undercloud, then run DHCP proxy on the Undercloud to receive all the requests and forward them to br-ctlplane, where dnsmasq listens. This will provide a substitute for routers running DHCP relay. For Neutron DHCP, some modifications to the iptables rule may be required to ensure that all DHCP requests from the overcloud nodes are received by the DHCP proxy and/or the Neutron dnsmasq process running in the dhcp-agent namespace.

Documentation Impact

The procedure for setting up a dev environment will need to be documented, and a work item mentions this requirement.

The TripleO docs will need to be updated to include detailed instructions for deploying in a spine-and-leaf environment, including the environment setup. Covering specific vendor implementations of switch configurations is outside this scope, but a specific overview of required configuration options should be included, such as enabling DHCP relay (or “helper-address” as it is also known) and setting the Undercloud as a server to receive DHCP requests.

The updates to TripleO docs will also have to include a detailed discussion of choices to be made about IP addressing before a deployment. If supernets are to be used for network isolation, then a good plan for IP addressing will be required to ensure scalability in the future.