Fixes#13505
This fixes#13505 by treating reserved_ports like we treat a lot of jobspec settings: merging settings from more global stanzas (client.reserved.reserved_ports) "down" into more specific stanzas (client.host_networks[].reserved_ports).
As discussed in #13505 there are other options, and since it's totally broken right now we have some flexibility:
Treat overlapping reserved_ports on addresses as invalid and refuse to start agents. However, I'm not sure there's a cohesive model we want to publish right now since so much 0.9-0.12 compat code still exists! We would have to explain to folks that if their -network-interface and host_network addresses overlapped, they could only specify reserved_ports in one place or the other?! It gets ugly.
Use the global client.reserved.reserved_ports value as the default and treat host_network[].reserverd_ports as overrides. My first suggestion in the issue, but @groggemans made me realize the addresses on the agent's interface (as configured by -network-interface) may overlap with host_networks, so you'd need to remove the global reserved_ports from addresses shared with a shared network?! This seemed really confusing and subtle for users to me.
So I think "merging down" creates the most expressive yet understandable approach. I've played around with it a bit, and it doesn't seem too surprising. The only frustrating part is how difficult it is to observe the available addresses and ports on a node! However that's a job for another PR.
Enhance the CLI in order to return the host network in two flavors
(default, verbose) of the `node status` command.
Fixes: #11223.
Signed-off-by: Alessandro De Blasis <alex@deblasis.net>
* ar: support opting into binding host ports to default network IP
* fix config plumbing
* plumb node address into network resource
* struct: only handle network resource upgrade path once
Also includes unit tests for binpacker and preemption.
The tests verify that network resources specified at the
task group level are properly accounted for
