design-proposal: Primary Network Binding for seamless migration

[EdDev]

What this PR does / why we need it:

Choose the most appropriate Kubevirt network binding for the primary pod network, considering basic functionality support, including seamless migration.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged): Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Checklist

This checklist is not enforcing, but it's a reminder of items that could be relevant to every PR. Approvers are expected to review this list.

• [ ] Design: A design document was considered and is present (link) or not required
• [ ] PR: The PR description is expressive enough and will help future contributors
• [ ] Code: Write code that humans can understand and Keep it simple
• [ ] Refactor: You have left the code cleaner than you found it (Boy Scout Rule)
• [ ] Upgrade: Impact of this change on upgrade flows was considered and addressed if required
• [ ] Testing: New code requires new unit tests. New features and bug fixes require at least on e2e test
• [ ] Documentation: A user-guide update was considered and is present (link) or not required. You want a user-guide update if it's a user facing feature / API change.
• [ ] Community: Announcement to kubevirt-dev was considered

Release note:

NONE

[EdDev]

/sig network

[maiqueb]

/cc

[EdDev]

I have added the option of using domainAttachmentType without the need of a CNI or sidecar.

[EdDev]

change: Answered latest review comments.

[xpivarc]

/lgtm /cc @jean-edouard @vladikr Could you have a look as approver?

[vladikr]

/approve I don't know why did we need to mention the nature of the network plugins support in this proposal. We could simply point to a centralized description of of out of tree network plugins. If we are planning to mention this, please also make sure that it is clear that the support for these plugins is best effort only. These plugins don't use an officially supported KubeVirt API.

/hold

[kubevirt-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: vladikr

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~~ [vladikr]

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

[EdDev]

If we are planning to mention this, please also make sure that it is clear that the support for these plugins is best effort only. These plugins don't use an officially supported KubeVirt API.

This plugin is fully supported because Kubevirt SIG-Network authored it. It uses a Beta feature, so it is valid while the API is there. As Beta, it can either GA or drop (and with it all the binding plugins).

Is this acceptable?

[vladikr]

If we are planning to mention this, please also make sure that it is clear that the support for these plugins is best effort only. These plugins don't use an officially supported KubeVirt API.

This plugin is fully supported because Kubevirt SIG-Network authored it. It uses a Beta feature, so it is valid while the API is there. As Beta, it can either GA or drop (and with it all the binding plugins).

Is this acceptable?

Yes, no issues with this plugin. I am only concerned about the general statement on line 79-80

[vladikr]

/unhold