CNV-64163: Fixed namespace value in localnet UDN doc

[sjhala-ccs]

Version(s): 4.19+

Issue: CNV-64163

Link to docs preview: https://95180--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/virt/vm_networking/virt-connecting-vm-to-secondary-udn.html#virt-creating-secondary-udn-namespace_virt-connecting-vm-to-secondary-udn

https://95180--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/virt/vm_networking/virt-connecting-vm-to-secondary-udn.html#virt-attaching-vm-to-secondary-udn_virt-connecting-vm-to-secondary-udn

QE review:

• QE has approved this change.

Additional information:

[openshift-ci-robot]

@sjhala-ccs: This pull request references CNV-64163 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the bug to target the "4.20.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Version(s): 4.19+

Issue: CNV-64163

Link to docs preview:

QE review:

• QE has approved this change.

Additional information:

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@sjhala-ccs: This pull request references CNV-64163 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the bug to target the "4.20.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Version(s): 4.19+

Issue: CNV-64163

Link to docs preview:

QE review:

• QE has approved this change.

Additional information:

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[ocpdocs-previewbot]

🤖 Wed Jun 25 13:55:47 - Prow CI generated the docs preview:

https://95180--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/virt/vm_networking/virt-connecting-vm-to-secondary-udn.html

[openshift-ci-robot]

@sjhala-ccs: This pull request references CNV-64163 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the bug to target the "4.20.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Version(s): 4.19+

Issue: CNV-64163

Link to docs preview: https://95180--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/virt/vm_networking/virt-connecting-vm-to-secondary-udn.html#virt-creating-secondary-udn-namespace_virt-connecting-vm-to-secondary-udn

https://95180--ocpdocs-pr.netlify.app/openshift-enterprise/latest/virt/vm_networking/virt-connecting-vm-to-secondary-udn.html#virt-attaching-vm-to-secondary-udn_virt-connecting-vm-to-secondary-udn

QE review:

• QE has approved this change.

Additional information:

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[maiqueb]

This makes the examples usable, thanks for that.

@ormergi one request for your opinion: I see the C-UDN being configured has physicalNetworkName: tenantblue as its value. This C-UDN interconnects the "blue" and "red" namespaces. Would it make sense to incorporate that depth into the physical network name ? i.e. calling it purple (red + blue) or something like that ? I do understand it does not matter - what matters is that the physical network name matches the NNCP bridge mappings provided.

Just some food for thought @sjhala-ccs .

[ormergi]

This makes the examples usable, thanks for that.

@ormergi one request for your opinion: I see the C-UDN being configured has physicalNetworkName: tenantblue as its value. This C-UDN interconnects the "blue" and "red" namespaces. Would it make sense to incorporate that depth into the physical network name ? i.e. calling it purple (red + blue) or something like that ? I do understand it does not matter - what matters is that the physical network name matches the NNCP bridge mappings provided.

Just some food for thought @sjhala-ccs .

Yep, make sense to rename the physicalNetworkName to something common (e.g.: purple ) or non exclusively related to one of the namespaces (localnet1)

[openshift-ci]

@sjhala-ccs: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[maiqueb]

Thank you !

[ormergi]

LGTM