Re: [atomic-devel] recommending Flannel (w/ vxlan backend) for atomic -- thoughts?

[Colin Walters <walters verbum org>]

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014, at 02:36 PM, John W. Linville wrote:

> Given the description above (and whatever other sources you might have
> at your disposal), does anyone have any objections to using this as a
> default Kubernetes networking solution in Atomic?  

It seems clear that we need to have an easy to use option for every provider other than GCE, from bare metal to AWS.

Two random questions:

* Should we carry logic in Atomic to special case GCE and *not* use Flannel?  If so, do we have the service enabled by default, and then just disable it in the default GCE image?
* I notice CoreOS has some scripts around running flannel as a --net=host privileged container, but I'd think we want this on the host system, just like we're doing with Kubernetes, right?

It looks like Jan is trying to get stuff through Fedora review now:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1164152
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1164170
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1164176

We have enough people here that we really need to do a better job of spreading the load out of package review (and bodhi updates).

This would tentatively be scheduled for Fedora 22, right?  I created https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/AtomicHost which links to a presently nonexistent Changes/Kubernetes, something like this would probably be listed under that Change?