You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@cloudstack.apache.org by Gary Dixon <Ga...@quadris.co.uk.INVALID> on 2023/10/20 08:40:18 UTC
RVR 2 nics for Private gateway
ACS 4.14.2
KVM on ubuntu 20.04 hosts
Adv Zone with no SG's
Hi all
I restarted a redundant VPC with cleanup yesterday so the RVR's could pick up a new service offering with more RAM and CPU.
I noticed that 2 of the interfaces were for the same Private gateway network eth2 and eth5 (and the same on the other VPC that this private gateway links to in the same Cloudstack environment) - checked other tenants RVR's that utilise a private gateway and they have just the one interface as usual.
These are the interfaces:
Network
6 NIC(s)
eth0 169.254.18.111
eth1 45.130.45.224 (PUBLIC)
eth2 172.26.0.2 (vpc-PLS_VPC-privateNetwork)
eth3 172.24.1.38 (172.24.1.0/24 - SERVERS)
eth4 172.24.3.202 (DMZ_172.24.3.0/24)
eth5 172.26.0.4 (vpc-PLS_VPC-privateNetwork)
Seems this is possibly a bug where a previously deleted PG is not fully gone and re-appears as a second interface on the RVR ?
Is there a way I can remove this extra PG config somewhere - perhaps in a DB table ?
BR
Gary
Gary Dixon
Senior Technical Consultant
T: +44 161 537 4990
E: vms@quadris-support.com
W: www.quadris.co.uk
The information contained in this e-mail from Quadris may be confidential and privileged for the private use of the named recipient. The contents of this e-mail may not necessarily represent the official views of Quadris. If you have received this information in error you must not copy, distribute or take any action or reliance on its contents. Please destroy any hard copies and delete this message.
RE: RVR 2 nics for Private gateway
Posted by Gary Dixon <Ga...@quadris.co.uk.INVALID>.
Sorry – mistyp’d our ACS version – we are on 4.15.2
Gary Dixon
Senior Technical Consultant
T: +44 161 537 4990
E: vms@quadris-support.com
W: www.quadris.co.uk
The information contained in this e-mail from Quadris may be confidential and privileged for the private use of the named recipient. The contents of this e-mail may not necessarily represent the official views of Quadris. If you have received this information in error you must not copy, distribute or take any action or reliance on its contents. Please destroy any hard copies and delete this message.
From: Gary Dixon <Ga...@quadris.co.uk.INVALID>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2023 9:40 AM
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RVR 2 nics for Private gateway
ACS 4.14.2
KVM on ubuntu 20.04 hosts
Adv Zone with no SG’s
Hi all
I restarted a redundant VPC with cleanup yesterday so the RVR’s could pick up a new service offering with more RAM and CPU.
I noticed that 2 of the interfaces were for the same Private gateway network eth2 and eth5 (and the same on the other VPC that this private gateway links to in the same Cloudstack environment) – checked other tenants RVR’s that utilise a private gateway and they have just the one interface as usual.
These are the interfaces:
Network
6 NIC(s)
eth0 169.254.18.111
eth1 45.130.45.224 (PUBLIC)
eth2 172.26.0.2 (vpc-PLS_VPC-privateNetwork)
eth3 172.24.1.38 (172.24.1.0/24 - SERVERS)
eth4 172.24.3.202 (DMZ_172.24.3.0/24)
eth5 172.26.0.4 (vpc-PLS_VPC-privateNetwork)
Seems this is possibly a bug where a previously deleted PG is not fully gone and re-appears as a second interface on the RVR ?
Is there a way I can remove this extra PG config somewhere – perhaps in a DB table ?
BR
Gary
Gary Dixon
Senior Technical Consultant
T: +44 161 537 4990
E: v<tel:+44%207989717661>ms@quadris‑support.com
W: www.quadris.co.uk<http://www.quadris.co.uk>
[cid:image446906.png@2900EE75.258ECF60]
The information contained in this e-mail from Quadris may be confidential and privileged for the private use of the named recipient. The contents of this e-mail may not necessarily represent the official views of Quadris. If you have received this information in error you must not copy, distribute or take any action or reliance on its contents. Please destroy any hard copies and delete this message.
RE: RVR 2 nics for Private gateway
Posted by Gary Dixon <Ga...@quadris.co.uk.INVALID>.
Thanks Wei
Will check in the table
Gary Dixon
Senior Technical Consultant
T: +44 161 537 4990
E: vms@quadris-support.com
W: www.quadris.co.uk
The information contained in this e-mail from Quadris may be confidential and privileged for the private use of the named recipient. The contents of this e-mail may not necessarily represent the official views of Quadris. If you have received this information in error you must not copy, distribute or take any action or reliance on its contents. Please destroy any hard copies and delete this message.
-----Original Message-----
From: Wei ZHOU <us...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2023 10:49 AM
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: RVR 2 nics for Private gateway
You can find the private gateways in table "vpc_gateways"
The issue is probably because some gateways or their corresponding networks are not removed (removed field in null).
-Wei
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 at 10:40, Gary Dixon <Ga...@quadris.co.uk.invalid>
wrote:
> ACS 4.14.2
>
>
>
> KVM on ubuntu 20.04 hosts
>
> Adv Zone with no SG’s
>
>
>
> Hi all
>
>
>
> I restarted a redundant VPC with cleanup yesterday so the RVR’s could
> pick up a new service offering with more RAM and CPU.
>
>
>
> I noticed that 2 of the interfaces were for the same Private gateway
> network eth2 and eth5 (and the same on the other VPC that this private
> gateway links to in the same Cloudstack environment) – checked other
> tenants RVR’s that utilise a private gateway and they have just the
> one interface as usual.
>
>
>
> These are the interfaces:
>
>
>
> Network
>
> 6 NIC(s)
>
> eth0 169.254.18.111
>
> eth1 45.130.45.224 (PUBLIC)
>
> eth2 172.26.0.2 (vpc-PLS_VPC-privateNetwork)
>
> eth3 172.24.1.38 (172.24.1.0/24 - SERVERS)
>
> eth4 172.24.3.202 (DMZ_172.24.3.0/24)
>
> eth5 172.26.0.4 (vpc-PLS_VPC-privateNetwork)
>
>
>
> Seems this is possibly a bug where a previously deleted PG is not
> fully gone and re-appears as a second interface on the RVR ?
>
>
>
> Is there a way I can remove this extra PG config somewhere – perhaps
> in a DB table ?
>
>
>
> BR
>
>
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
> Gary Dixon
> Senior Technical Consultant
> T: +44 161 537 4990
> E: v <+44%207989717661>ms@quadris‑support.com
> W:
> http://www.q/
> uadris.co.uk%2F&data=05%7C01%7CGary.Dixon%40quadris.co.uk%7C517207d435
> 9947826e4508dbd152046f%7Cf1d6abf3d3b44894ae16db0fb93a96a2%7C0%7C0%7C63
> 8333922423582736%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV
> 2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fHxML9qR%2
> Fie%2BRZfINibve3F6kAJY3xUQSIdG0JtSUcY%3D&reserved=0
> The information contained in this e-mail from Quadris may be
> confidential and privileged for the private use of the named
> recipient. The contents of this e-mail may not necessarily represent the official views of Quadris.
> If you have received this information in error you must not copy,
> distribute or take any action or reliance on its contents. Please
> destroy any hard copies and delete this message.
>
RE: RVR 2 nics for Private gateway
Posted by Gary Dixon <Ga...@quadris.co.uk.INVALID>.
We found 2 different Network ID's for the same private gateway so will look to delete the associated nic and then the incorrect network ID from the DB and then restart the VPC with cleanup enabled - thanks Wei
Gary Dixon
Senior Technical Consultant
T: +44 161 537 4990
E: vms@quadris-support.com
W: www.quadris.co.uk
The information contained in this e-mail from Quadris may be confidential and privileged for the private use of the named recipient. The contents of this e-mail may not necessarily represent the official views of Quadris. If you have received this information in error you must not copy, distribute or take any action or reliance on its contents. Please destroy any hard copies and delete this message.
-----Original Message-----
From: Wei ZHOU <us...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2023 10:49 AM
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: RVR 2 nics for Private gateway
You can find the private gateways in table "vpc_gateways"
The issue is probably because some gateways or their corresponding networks are not removed (removed field in null).
-Wei
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 at 10:40, Gary Dixon <Ga...@quadris.co.uk.invalid>
wrote:
> ACS 4.14.2
>
>
>
> KVM on ubuntu 20.04 hosts
>
> Adv Zone with no SG’s
>
>
>
> Hi all
>
>
>
> I restarted a redundant VPC with cleanup yesterday so the RVR’s could
> pick up a new service offering with more RAM and CPU.
>
>
>
> I noticed that 2 of the interfaces were for the same Private gateway
> network eth2 and eth5 (and the same on the other VPC that this private
> gateway links to in the same Cloudstack environment) – checked other
> tenants RVR’s that utilise a private gateway and they have just the
> one interface as usual.
>
>
>
> These are the interfaces:
>
>
>
> Network
>
> 6 NIC(s)
>
> eth0 169.254.18.111
>
> eth1 45.130.45.224 (PUBLIC)
>
> eth2 172.26.0.2 (vpc-PLS_VPC-privateNetwork)
>
> eth3 172.24.1.38 (172.24.1.0/24 - SERVERS)
>
> eth4 172.24.3.202 (DMZ_172.24.3.0/24)
>
> eth5 172.26.0.4 (vpc-PLS_VPC-privateNetwork)
>
>
>
> Seems this is possibly a bug where a previously deleted PG is not
> fully gone and re-appears as a second interface on the RVR ?
>
>
>
> Is there a way I can remove this extra PG config somewhere – perhaps
> in a DB table ?
>
>
>
> BR
>
>
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
> Gary Dixon
> Senior Technical Consultant
> T: +44 161 537 4990
> E: v <+44%207989717661>ms@quadris‑support.com
> W:
> http://www.q/
> uadris.co.uk%2F&data=05%7C01%7CGary.Dixon%40quadris.co.uk%7C517207d435
> 9947826e4508dbd152046f%7Cf1d6abf3d3b44894ae16db0fb93a96a2%7C0%7C0%7C63
> 8333922423582736%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV
> 2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fHxML9qR%2
> Fie%2BRZfINibve3F6kAJY3xUQSIdG0JtSUcY%3D&reserved=0
> The information contained in this e-mail from Quadris may be
> confidential and privileged for the private use of the named
> recipient. The contents of this e-mail may not necessarily represent the official views of Quadris.
> If you have received this information in error you must not copy,
> distribute or take any action or reliance on its contents. Please
> destroy any hard copies and delete this message.
>
Re: RVR 2 nics for Private gateway
Posted by Wei ZHOU <us...@gmail.com>.
You can find the private gateways in table "vpc_gateways"
The issue is probably because some gateways or their corresponding networks
are not removed (removed field in null).
-Wei
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 at 10:40, Gary Dixon <Ga...@quadris.co.uk.invalid>
wrote:
> ACS 4.14.2
>
>
>
> KVM on ubuntu 20.04 hosts
>
> Adv Zone with no SG’s
>
>
>
> Hi all
>
>
>
> I restarted a redundant VPC with cleanup yesterday so the RVR’s could pick
> up a new service offering with more RAM and CPU.
>
>
>
> I noticed that 2 of the interfaces were for the same Private gateway
> network eth2 and eth5 (and the same on the other VPC that this private
> gateway links to in the same Cloudstack environment) – checked other
> tenants RVR’s that utilise a private gateway and they have just the one
> interface as usual.
>
>
>
> These are the interfaces:
>
>
>
> Network
>
> 6 NIC(s)
>
> eth0 169.254.18.111
>
> eth1 45.130.45.224 (PUBLIC)
>
> eth2 172.26.0.2 (vpc-PLS_VPC-privateNetwork)
>
> eth3 172.24.1.38 (172.24.1.0/24 - SERVERS)
>
> eth4 172.24.3.202 (DMZ_172.24.3.0/24)
>
> eth5 172.26.0.4 (vpc-PLS_VPC-privateNetwork)
>
>
>
> Seems this is possibly a bug where a previously deleted PG is not fully
> gone and re-appears as a second interface on the RVR ?
>
>
>
> Is there a way I can remove this extra PG config somewhere – perhaps in a
> DB table ?
>
>
>
> BR
>
>
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
> Gary Dixon
> Senior Technical Consultant
> T: +44 161 537 4990
> E: v <+44%207989717661>ms@quadris‑support.com
> W: www.quadris.co.uk
> The information contained in this e-mail from Quadris may be confidential
> and privileged for the private use of the named recipient. The contents of
> this e-mail may not necessarily represent the official views of Quadris.
> If you have received this information in error you must not copy,
> distribute or take any action or reliance on its contents. Please destroy
> any hard copies and delete this message.
>