-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 160
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
The layer2 provisioner API reports the wrong port name for interfaces on different switches #906
Comments
So, for the record, not a bug but a feature request because:
What are you ultimately trying to achieve here? Is it a port migration? The way we'd handle that is:
I.e. we wouldn't have old and new at the same time. |
Yes, the ultimate goal is migrating the port. |
We'll look at the issue for sure. Regarding the process, I can only speak to how we typically do these. For us, we'd never have two ports enabled for a member during a migration for fear of l2 loops / etc. You never know what's on the member end of the link. So we always co-ordinate on time and the process for us is:
Statistics wise - adding two physical interfaces won't solve that as the mrtg config stores the data in dedicated physical interface files. I.e. old port data in old phys int file and new port data in new phys int file. The only time their combined is if the port is a lag. |
BTW, I have noticed that also parameters like |
ISSUE TYPE
Bug Report
OS
Ubuntu 24.04 LTS
VERSION
SUMMARY
When a VLAN interface has two physical ports on different switches configured, the
v4/provisioner/layer2interfaces/switch-name/$switch.json
API returns an incorrect port name for the second switch port.STEPS TO REPRODUCE
My procedure to migrate a member to a different switch is:
At step 3 both the old and the new interface are configured in IXP manager.
EXPECTED RESULTS
The API should return the correct port for the switch.
ACTUAL RESULTS
The API returns the name of the first port also for the second switch.
IMPORTANCE
Not being able to automatically generate the configuration for a new switch port significantly increases the risk of configuration mistakes.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: