-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 60
Specify external DNS IPs in PlanningInput instead of deriving them from the parent blueprint
#9291
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
Open
jgallagher
wants to merge
14
commits into
john/prune-blueprint-resource-allocator-1
Choose a base branch
from
john/external-dns-ips-in-policy
base: john/prune-blueprint-resource-allocator-1
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Specify external DNS IPs in PlanningInput instead of deriving them from the parent blueprint
#9291
jgallagher
wants to merge
14
commits into
john/prune-blueprint-resource-allocator-1
from
john/external-dns-ips-in-policy
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
plotnick
reviewed
Oct 27, 2025
| // This can't be `#[cfg(test)]` because it's used by the `ExampleSystem` | ||
| // helper (which itself is used by reconfigurator-cli and friends). We give | ||
| // it a scary name instead. | ||
| pub(crate) fn inject_untracked_external_dns_ip( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🎉
bnaecker
reviewed
Oct 27, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a solid cleanup. I have a few questions, but they're mostly small. I like where we're going on this.
nexus/db-queries/src/db/datastore/deployment/external_networking.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
nexus/db-queries/src/db/datastore/deployment/external_networking.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is built on top of #9250, and is related to both #9238 and #8949:
BlueprintResourceAllocatorinternalsExternalIpPolicytype; today it holds a couple of IP pools and a set of external DNS IPs, but it gives us a cleaner place to integrate all the IP pool work that @bnaecker is doing with ReconfiguratorSince we don't actually have external DNS IPs in a policy anywhere, this adds
DataStore::external_dns_external_ips_specified_by_rack_setup()(which is implemented as "load the current target blueprint and scan it for external DNS zones"; i.e., exactly what the builder was doing before). We should eventually delete this method once it's possible for an operator to reconfigure the external DNS IPs, but this lets the planning input build up the policy as though we already had this information available, more or less. Other than that new method, almost all the changes in this PR are to tests; the non-test changes are pretty minimal.