Add conserve mode for VPC offerings by nvazquez · Pull Request #12487 · apache/cloudstack

nvazquez · 2026-01-21T15:28:02Z

Description

Documentation PR: apache/cloudstack-documentation#631

This PR extends the conserve mode for VPCs tiers added on the previous PRs: #8309, #10744 by allowing:

If conserve_mode = true for network offering (for VPC tier): the public IPs can be used by multiple services (Lb, PortForwarding) - This behaviour already exists since 4.19 (except for Source NAT IP of the VPC)
With this PR, the public IP used for Source NAT can be reused for multiple services (it was previously restricted to Source NAT only) when VPC conserve_mode = true and network_offering for VPC tier = true

This PR also introduces the following changes:

Introduce conserve mode for VPC offerings:
- When a VPC is created from a VPC offering using conserve mode = true: public IP rules can be created on different VPC tiers (when conserve mode = false, the rules are restricted to a single VPC tier).
All the existing VPC offerings will keep conserve mode = false
VPC offerings can be created with conserve mode (default value = false on the VPC offering creation)

Fixes: #8317

Types of changes

Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)
Build/CI
Test (unit or integration test code)

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

Major
Minor

Bug Severity

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

Create a VPC Offering with Conserve mode enabled selecting:
- Conserve mode = True
- Services: Dns, Dhcp, Vpn, UserData, StaticNat, SourceNat, NetworkACL, Portforwarding, Lb as VpcVirtualRouter
Create VPC selecting the previous VPC Offering
Create VPC tiers with the default isolated network offering for VPC and deploy VMs on each tier
Observe the Source NAT IP address can be used for multiple services, create different rules
Acquire new Public IP address and create rules across different VPC tiers for the same Public IP address

How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?

nvazquez · 2026-01-21T15:28:46Z

@blueorangutan package

blueorangutan · 2026-01-21T15:30:36Z

@nvazquez a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with no SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

codecov · 2026-01-21T15:36:23Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 35.54217% with 107 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 17.93%. Comparing base (74af9b9) to head (8977d3d).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...n/java/com/cloud/network/IpAddressManagerImpl.java	0.00%	26 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
...loud/network/lb/LoadBalancingRulesManagerImpl.java	63.15%	15 Missing and 6 partials ⚠️
...user/loadbalancer/AssignToLoadBalancerRuleCmd.java	0.00%	15 Missing ⚠️
...e/cloudstack/api/response/VpcOfferingResponse.java	0.00%	6 Missing ⚠️
...main/java/com/cloud/network/vpc/VpcOfferingVO.java	0.00%	6 Missing ⚠️
...ain/java/com/cloud/network/vpc/VpcManagerImpl.java	66.66%	2 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
...om/cloud/network/firewall/FirewallManagerImpl.java	75.00%	1 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
...ck/api/command/admin/vpc/CreateVPCOfferingCmd.java	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
.../cloudstack/api/response/FirewallRuleResponse.java	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
...rg/apache/cloudstack/api/response/VpcResponse.java	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
... and 8 more

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##               main   #12487    +/-   ##
==========================================
  Coverage     17.92%   17.93%            
- Complexity    16176    16193    +17     
==========================================
  Files          5949     5949            
  Lines        534058   534212   +154     
  Branches      65301    65330    +29     
==========================================
+ Hits          95742    95793    +51     
- Misses       427560   427653    +93     
- Partials      10756    10766    +10

Flag	Coverage Δ
uitests	`3.66% <ø> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
unittests	`19.04% <35.54%> (+<0.01%)`	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

blueorangutan · 2026-01-21T16:05:08Z

Packaging result [SF]: ✖️ el8 ✖️ el9 ✖️ debian ✖️ suse15. SL-JID 16471

nvazquez · 2026-01-21T18:58:21Z

@blueorangutan package

blueorangutan · 2026-01-21T19:00:35Z

@nvazquez a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with no SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

blueorangutan · 2026-01-21T19:40:01Z

Packaging result [SF]: ✖️ el8 ✖️ el9 ✔️ debian ✖️ suse15. SL-JID 16473

nvazquez · 2026-01-21T20:31:01Z

@blueorangutan package

blueorangutan · 2026-01-21T20:32:36Z

@nvazquez a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with no SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

blueorangutan · 2026-01-21T21:10:55Z

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ el10 ✖️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 16475

nvazquez · 2026-01-21T21:12:43Z

@blueorangutan test keepEnv

blueorangutan · 2026-01-21T21:14:34Z

@nvazquez a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + kvm-ol8) has been kicked to run smoke tests

blueorangutan · 2026-01-22T13:29:06Z

[SF] Trillian test result (tid-15239)
Environment: kvm-ol8 (x2), zone: Advanced Networking with Mgmt server ol8
Total time taken: 55566 seconds
Marvin logs: https://github.com/blueorangutan/acs-prs/releases/download/trillian/pr12487-t15239-kvm-ol8.zip
Smoke tests completed. 147 look OK, 3 have errors, 0 did not run
Only failed and skipped tests results shown below:

Test	Result	Time (s)	Test File
test_03_deploy_and_scale_kubernetes_cluster	`Failure`	26.70	test_kubernetes_clusters.py
test_02_list_cpvm_vm	`Failure`	0.03	test_ssvm.py
test_04_cpvm_internals	`Failure`	0.04	test_ssvm.py
test_01_redundant_vpc_site2site_vpn	`Failure`	392.36	test_vpc_vpn.py

nvazquez · 2026-01-27T05:13:52Z

@blueorangutan package

blueorangutan · 2026-01-27T05:16:05Z

@nvazquez a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with no SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

RosiKyu · 2026-03-02T13:21:36Z

@blueorangutan package

RosiKyu · 2026-03-02T13:21:44Z

@blueorangutan test

blueorangutan · 2026-03-02T13:22:04Z

@RosiKyu a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + kvm-ol8) has been kicked to run smoke tests

RosiKyu · 2026-03-02T15:47:23Z

@blueorangutan package

blueorangutan · 2026-03-02T15:48:04Z

@RosiKyu a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with no SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

blueorangutan · 2026-03-02T16:57:44Z

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ el10 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 16986

blueorangutan · 2026-03-03T04:55:00Z

[SF] Trillian test result (tid-15551)
Environment: kvm-ol8 (x2), zone: Advanced Networking with Mgmt server ol8
Total time taken: 53159 seconds
Marvin logs: https://github.com/blueorangutan/acs-prs/releases/download/trillian/pr12487-t15551-kvm-ol8.zip
Smoke tests completed. 147 look OK, 4 have errors, 0 did not run
Only failed and skipped tests results shown below:

Test	Result	Time (s)	Test File
test_LoginApiDomain	`Error`	6.90	test_accounts.py
ContextSuite context=TestListIdsParams>:teardown	`Error`	1.13	test_list_ids_parameter.py
test_01_snapshot_root_disk	`Error`	5.99	test_snapshots.py
test_02_list_snapshots_with_removed_data_store	`Error`	47.86	test_snapshots.py
test_02_list_snapshots_with_removed_data_store	`Error`	47.86	test_snapshots.py
ContextSuite context=TestSnapshotStandaloneBackup>:teardown	`Error`	27.66	test_snapshots.py
test_01_snapshot_usage	`Error`	25.76	test_usage.py
test_01_vpn_usage	`Error`	1.10	test_usage.py

weizhouapache · 2026-03-05T09:34:28Z

server/src/main/java/com/cloud/network/IpAddressManagerImpl.java

+    protected Long getPreferredNetworkIdForRule(IpAddress ip, boolean vpcConserveModeEnabled, Long networkId) {
+        if (vpcConserveModeEnabled) {
+            // Since VPC Conserve mode allows rules from multiple VPC tiers, always check the networkId parameter first
+            return networkId != null ? networkId : ip.getAssociatedWithNetworkId();


@nvazquez
will the IP be associated to a network in VPC conserve mode ?
in my opinion, it should not, so ip.getAssociatedWithNetworkId() will always be null.
in that case, user may have to specify the networkId when create a LB or PF in VPC conserve mode. I think there is no backward compatibility issue as VPC conserve mode is a new feature.

cc @harikrishna-patnala
btw, I think when configure Firewall rules on a public IP in VPC conserve mode, the networkId is not mandatory as IP might not be used by any VM or network or rules. in this case, we check if Firewall service is supported in VPC offering.
in non-conserve mode, the networkId or ip.getAssociatedWithNetworkId() should not be null, we check if Firewall service is supported in network offering.
does it make sense ?

…de enabled

nvazquez · 2026-03-09T15:51:54Z

@blueorangutan package

blueorangutan · 2026-03-09T15:54:04Z

@nvazquez a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with no SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

blueorangutan · 2026-03-09T17:23:52Z

Packaging result [SF]: ✖️ el8 ✖️ el9 ✖️ debian ✖️ suse15. SL-JID 17050

nvazquez · 2026-03-09T17:33:55Z

@blueorangutan package

blueorangutan · 2026-03-09T17:36:04Z

@nvazquez a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with no SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

blueorangutan · 2026-03-09T18:29:04Z

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ el10 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 17053

nvazquez · 2026-03-09T19:40:34Z

@blueorangutan test

blueorangutan · 2026-03-09T19:42:03Z

@nvazquez a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + kvm-ol8) has been kicked to run smoke tests

blueorangutan · 2026-03-10T11:05:16Z

[SF] Trillian test result (tid-15585)
Environment: kvm-ol8 (x2), zone: Advanced Networking with Mgmt server ol8
Total time taken: 52515 seconds
Marvin logs: https://github.com/blueorangutan/acs-prs/releases/download/trillian/pr12487-t15585-kvm-ol8.zip
Smoke tests completed. 147 look OK, 4 have errors, 0 did not run
Only failed and skipped tests results shown below:

Test	Result	Time (s)	Test File
ContextSuite context=TestListIdsParams>:teardown	`Error`	1.17	test_list_ids_parameter.py
test_01_snapshot_root_disk	`Error`	4.96	test_snapshots.py
test_02_list_snapshots_with_removed_data_store	`Error`	47.15	test_snapshots.py
test_02_list_snapshots_with_removed_data_store	`Error`	47.16	test_snapshots.py
ContextSuite context=TestSnapshotStandaloneBackup>:teardown	`Error`	25.50	test_snapshots.py
test_01_snapshot_usage	`Error`	19.89	test_usage.py
test_01_vpn_usage	`Error`	1.12	test_usage.py
test_01_redundant_vpc_site2site_vpn	`Failure`	378.52	test_vpc_vpn.py

nvazquez · 2026-03-10T15:52:39Z

@blueorangutan package

blueorangutan · 2026-03-10T15:54:04Z

@nvazquez a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with no SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

blueorangutan · 2026-03-10T16:57:09Z

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ el10 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 17080

nvazquez · 2026-03-10T16:59:46Z

@blueorangutan test

blueorangutan · 2026-03-10T17:02:04Z

@nvazquez a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + kvm-ol8) has been kicked to run smoke tests

Fix conserve mode for VPC Source NAT and extend rules for VPC tiers

ca62353

boring-cyborg bot added component:api component:networking component:UI component:vpc labels Jan 21, 2026

Fix unit test

5ade2b3

Fixes

3fd969b

nvazquez marked this pull request as ready for review January 27, 2026 05:09

nvazquez requested review from DaanHoogland, Pearl1594, shwstppr, sureshanaparti and weizhouapache January 27, 2026 05:10

nvazquez added this to the 4.23.0 milestone Jan 27, 2026

nvazquez changed the title ~~Fix conserve mode for VPC Source NAT IP and extend rules for VPC tiers~~ Fix conserve mode for VPC Source NAT IP and extend conserve mode for VPC offerings Jan 27, 2026

weizhouapache reviewed Mar 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

RosiKyu added status:testing and removed ready-for-testing labels Mar 7, 2026

nvazquez added 2 commits March 9, 2026 12:43

Fix LB rule creation on different tier in not on VPC with conserve mo…

b6fbdc3

…de enabled

Merge branch 'main' into 423-source-nat-vpc-conserve

1caa367

Fix unit tests

292a184

Fix load balancer rule VMs from multiple VPC tiers on Conserve mode

8977d3d

boring-cyborg bot added the component:kubernetes label Mar 10, 2026

nvazquez mentioned this pull request Mar 10, 2026

[4.22] Prevent Load Balancer rule creation when adding a VM from a different network #12785

Open

14 tasks

Conversation

nvazquez commented Jan 21, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

Types of changes

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

Bug Severity

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?

Uh oh!

nvazquez commented Jan 21, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Jan 21, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Jan 21, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Jan 21, 2026

Uh oh!

nvazquez commented Jan 21, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Jan 21, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Jan 21, 2026

Uh oh!

nvazquez commented Jan 21, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Jan 21, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Jan 21, 2026

Uh oh!

nvazquez commented Jan 21, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Jan 21, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Jan 22, 2026

Uh oh!

nvazquez commented Jan 27, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Jan 27, 2026

Uh oh!

RosiKyu commented Mar 2, 2026

Uh oh!

RosiKyu commented Mar 2, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Mar 2, 2026

Uh oh!

RosiKyu commented Mar 2, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Mar 2, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Mar 2, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Mar 3, 2026

Uh oh!

weizhouapache Mar 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nvazquez commented Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

nvazquez commented Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

nvazquez commented Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Mar 9, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Mar 10, 2026

Uh oh!

nvazquez commented Mar 10, 2026

nvazquez commented Jan 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Jan 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading