Skip to content

cnv: avoid documenting cnv-bridge-cni #20631

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

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

dankenigsberg
Copy link
Contributor

As of OpenShift 4.3, the standard bridge-cni and tuning-cni are support
vlan filtering and static mac address, respectfully. We should direct
user to use these standard CNIs and not the CNV-crafted ones.

Signed-off-by: Dan Kenigsberg [email protected]

As of OpenShift 4.3, the standard bridge-cni and tuning-cni are support
vlan filtering and static mac address, respectfully. We should direct
user to use these standard CNIs and not the CNV-crafted ones.

Signed-off-by: Dan Kenigsberg <[email protected]>
@dankenigsberg
Copy link
Contributor Author

@duyanyan would you please keep me honest here, verifying that there is no need to use the cnv-crafted CNIs?

@dankenigsberg
Copy link
Contributor Author

@phoracek please approve this PR (or reject it if you think it is wrong)

@ousleyp ousleyp added branch/enterprise-4.3 branch/enterprise-4.4 peer-review-done Signifies that the peer review team has reviewed this PR labels Mar 24, 2020
@ousleyp ousleyp added this to the Next Release milestone Mar 24, 2020
@ousleyp
Copy link
Member

ousleyp commented Mar 24, 2020

LGTM. I will merge if @phoracek and/or @duyanyan approve :)

@phoracek
Copy link
Member

/hold

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Mar 24, 2020
@phoracek
Copy link
Member

If we want to switch to OpenShift's bridge and tuning plugins, we have to fully honor their API which is not based around NetworkAttachmentDefinition, but around their Network operator. That would require changes in our UI and in docs.

I'm in favor of switching to OCP's CNIs, but this PR would be at the end of a bigger effort. We should not merge this at this point.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
branch/enterprise-4.3 branch/enterprise-4.4 do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. peer-review-done Signifies that the peer review team has reviewed this PR
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants