How can you un-breakout ports?

[michaelbhughes]

Summary

We have triggered a new error when trying to move an interface from 4x25G breakout back to a 1x100G layout. It seems that a new version of an interface map is generated when we breakout a port, but un-breaking out a port does not work the same way.

Previous State
et-0/0/25:0
et-0/0/25:1
et-0/0/25:2
et-0/0/25:3

New State
et-0/0/25

Error

│ Error: failed adding links to generic system "KeBZ6t5knKAOcJc4mjU"
│ 
│   with apstra_datacenter_generic_system.external_generic_system["HV-077"],
│   on resource.tf line 2, in resource "apstra_datacenter_generic_system" "external_generic_system":
│    2: resource apstra_datacenter_generic_system external_generic_system {
│ 
│ {"api_response":null,"config_blueprint_version":0,"errors":{"_schema":"Device
│ profile \"Juniper_QFX5120-32C\" either does not have transformation with id
│ \"4\" or that transformation does not have active interface
│ \"et-0/0/25\""},"error_code":422} - http response '' at
│ '[http://100.113.72.133/api/blueprints/b82084f3-9f96-4229-a178-5ab1523ca960/switch-system-links?async=full&async=full'](http://100.113.72.133/api/blueprints/b82084f3-9f96-4229-a178-5ab1523ca960/switch-system-links?async=full&async=full%27)

Current Workaround

We currently delete the rack with the problem generic systems and recreate the rack and all its configs with another terraform plan/apply. This resets the interface map to a state where all ports are un-broken.

Request

Is there some kind of workaround for this behvaiour so we can un-breakout ports using terraform instead of relying on deleting the rack?

[bwJuniper]

Need to discuss and possibly create a RFE in apstra.

[chrismarget-j]

Hi @michaelbhughes,

I'm not able to reproduce this problem.

My starting terraform configuration:

resource "apstra_datacenter_generic_system" "b" {
  blueprint_id = "69ff8e58-fd0d-4bdc-974d-44d3a8aace37"
  links = [
    {
      target_switch_id              = "GK2yBZteUSTLEeTdjPo"
      target_switch_if_name         = "et-0/0/1"
      target_switch_if_transform_id = 1
    },
  ]
}

The modified terraform configuration:

resource "apstra_datacenter_generic_system" "b" {
  blueprint_id = "69ff8e58-fd0d-4bdc-974d-44d3a8aace37"
  links = [
    {
      lag_mode                      = "lacp_active"
      target_switch_id              = "GK2yBZteUSTLEeTdjPo"
      target_switch_if_name         = "et-0/0/1:0"
      target_switch_if_transform_id = 4
      group_label                   = "bond0"
    },
    {
      lag_mode                      = "lacp_active"
      target_switch_id              = "GK2yBZteUSTLEeTdjPo"
      target_switch_if_name         = "et-0/0/1:1"
      target_switch_if_transform_id = 4
      group_label                   = "bond0"
    },
    {
      lag_mode                      = "lacp_active"
      target_switch_id              = "GK2yBZteUSTLEeTdjPo"
      target_switch_if_name         = "et-0/0/1:2"
      target_switch_if_transform_id = 4
      group_label                   = "bond0"
    },
    {
      lag_mode                      = "lacp_active"
      target_switch_id              = "GK2yBZteUSTLEeTdjPo"
      target_switch_if_name         = "et-0/0/1:3"
      target_switch_if_transform_id = 4
      group_label                   = "bond0"
    },
  ]
}

Using plugin v0.58.0 (I don't think there's any relevant changes to the behavior of this version), terraform decides that the link change "forces replacement", and the generic system is removed/replaced without incident.

The error you're seeing comes from Apstra (not in our provider nor SDK code), so I'm not sure exactly where it's happening, but I wonder if the error is correct...

Device profile "Juniper_QFX5120-32C" either does not have transformation with id "4"
or that transformation does not have active interface "et-0/0/25"

Could it be that transform id 4 might expect an interface named something like et-0/0/25:N, rather than just et-0/0/25?

[michaelbhughes]

Thanks for the notes, I will dig into the details and get back to you. I will double check on your note Could it be that transform id 4 might expect an interface named something like et-0/0/25:N, rather than just et-0/0/25?, I understand what you mean here.