SR-IOV GA: add default route overwrite example

[zshi-redhat]

No description provided.

[zshi-redhat]

@squeed a follow-up PR for SR-IOV GA enhancement, adding example of default route overwrite config.

[s1061123]

Looks good to me. Thanks!

[s1061123]

/lgtm
Thanks!

[squeed]

From my perspective, it seems that it would be more useful to be able to declare arbitrary network-gateway pairs via Multus. Something like

kind: Pod
metadata:
  name: my-pod
  namespace: my-namespace
  annotations:
    k8s.v1.cni.cncf.io/networks: |
      [
        { "name":"net-a" ,
          "routes": [
            { 
              "dst": "10.0.0.0/24",
              "nexthop": "192.168.0.127"
            } ]
          },
        {
          "name":"net-b",
          "routes": [
            { 
              "dst": "0.0.0.0/0",
              "nexthop": "99.99.99.99"
            } ]          
        }
      ]

[dougbtv]

Hey Casey, I think that kind of structure is probably more useful in general and covers a further number of scenarios than what we currently have. What we decided to address in this current version of the NPWG de-facto standard was simply a proposal for "Default route selection". Zenghui's example in this PR is based on this proposal, which is available in this doc @ https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pqbWYtFdEYyXd1cXuyvq_J5SRnhiXCRptXho63gI4A8/edit

(Granted yes, it's still a proposal, we're hopeful to ratify this in the upcoming NPWG meeting next week)

We currently believe that this should be sufficient for SR-IOV GA, but... What I really like about what you've sketched out is that it's generally useful for routing. Definitely worth further consideration for the next version of the de-facto standard.

[russellb]

@dougbtv @zshi-redhat Hi, can you take a look at this enhancement and see if it should be rebased or just closed? It looks like a pretty minor addition that we should be able to either update to reflect the current status and merge, or just close.

[zshi-redhat]

@dougbtv @zshi-redhat Hi, can you take a look at this enhancement and see if it should be rebased or just closed? It looks like a pretty minor addition that we should be able to either update to reflect the current status and merge, or just close.

Rebased and updated the PR to reflect current fact (no additional features added).

[russellb]

Thanks!

/approve
/lgtm

[openshift-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: russellb, s1061123, zshi-redhat

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [russellb]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment