Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

provider/aws: Conflict between "ipv6_address_count" and "ipv6_addresses" which forces new resource #14032

Closed
sandnabba opened this issue Apr 27, 2017 · 2 comments · Fixed by #14355
Assignees

Comments

@sandnabba
Copy link

sandnabba commented Apr 27, 2017

Hello,

I'm trying to add an AWS instance with a static IPv6 address. This fails because Terraform want the "ipv6_address_count" to be 0, and consequently recreates the instance at each apply.

Terraform Version

Terraform v0.9.4

Affected Resource(s)

  • aws_instance

Terraform Configuration Files

resource "aws_instance" "emil_test" {
    subnet_id = "subnet-XXXXXXXX"
    ipv6_addresses = ["2406:da1c:XXXX:XXXX::10"]
}

Expected Behavior

After terraform apply, terraform plan should report "No changes. Infrastructure is up-to-date"

Actual Behavior

Terraform plan reports:

-/+ aws_instance.emil_test
    associate_public_ip_address:       "true" => "<computed>"
    availability_zone:                 "ap-southeast-2a" => "<computed>"
    ipv6_address_count:                "1" => "0" (forces new resource)
    ipv6_addresses.#:                  "1" => "1"
    ipv6_addresses.0:                  "2406:da1c:XXXX:XXXX::10" => "2406:da1c:XXXX:XXXX::10"

If I add "ipv6_address_count = 1" to the configuration, terraform plan fails with:

1 error(s) occurred:

* aws_instance.emil_test: "ipv6_addresses": conflicts with ipv6_address_count (1)

Steps to Reproduce

  1. terraform apply
  2. terraform plan

Related

@stack72
Copy link
Contributor

stack72 commented May 10, 2017

Hi @sandnabba

Thanks for reporting this bug - I can confirm that I have been able to recreate it:

-/+ aws_instance.test
    ami:                          "ami-c5eabbf5" => "ami-c5eabbf5"
    associate_public_ip_address:  "false" => "<computed>"
    availability_zone:            "us-west-2a" => "<computed>"
    ebs_block_device.#:           "0" => "<computed>"
    ephemeral_block_device.#:     "0" => "<computed>"
    instance_state:               "running" => "<computed>"
    instance_type:                "t2.micro" => "t2.micro"
    ipv6_address_count:           "1" => "0" (forces new resource)
    ipv6_addresses.#:             "1" => "1"
    ipv6_addresses.0:             "2600:1f14:bb2:e501::10" => "2600:1f14:bb2:e501::10"
    key_name:                     "" => "<computed>"
    network_interface.#:          "0" => "<computed>"
    network_interface_id:         "eni-d19115ec" => "<computed>"
    placement_group:              "" => "<computed>"
    primary_network_interface_id: "eni-d19115ec" => "<computed>"
    private_dns:                  "ip-10-20-1-252.us-west-2.compute.internal" => "<computed>"
    private_ip:                   "10.20.1.252" => "<computed>"
    public_dns:                   "" => "<computed>"
    public_ip:                    "" => "<computed>"
    root_block_device.#:          "1" => "<computed>"
    security_groups.#:            "0" => "<computed>"
    source_dest_check:            "true" => "true"
    subnet_id:                    "subnet-3fdfb476" => "subnet-3fdfb476"
    tags.%:                       "1" => "1"
    tags.Name:                    "stack72" => "stack72"
    tenancy:                      "default" => "<computed>"
    volume_tags.%:                "0" => "<computed>"
    vpc_security_group_ids.#:     "1" => "<computed>"

A patch I am working on now does the following as a plan:

% terraform plan                                                                                 ✹ ✭
[WARN] /Users/stacko/Code/go/bin/terraform-provider-aws overrides an internal plugin for aws-provider.
  If you did not expect to see this message you will need to remove the old plugin.
  See https://www.terraform.io/docs/internals/internal-plugins.html
Refreshing Terraform state in-memory prior to plan...
The refreshed state will be used to calculate this plan, but will not be
persisted to local or remote state storage.

aws_vpc.foo: Refreshing state... (ID: vpc-fa61669d)
aws_subnet.foo: Refreshing state... (ID: subnet-3fdfb476)
aws_internet_gateway.foo: Refreshing state... (ID: igw-70629a17)
aws_route_table.test: Refreshing state... (ID: rtb-0a52e16c)
aws_instance.test: Refreshing state... (ID: i-0971755345296aca5)
aws_route_table_association.a: Refreshing state... (ID: rtbassoc-b12493c8)
No changes. Infrastructure is up-to-date.

This means that Terraform did not detect any differences between your
configuration and real physical resources that exist. As a result, Terraform
doesn't need to do anything.

This will be included in the Terraform 0.9.5 release

Thanks

Paul

stack72 added a commit that referenced this issue May 10, 2017
Fixes: #14032

When you are using an IPv6 address directly to an instance, it was
causing the ipv6_address_count to try and ForceNew resource. It wasn't
marked as computed

I was able to see this here:

```
-/+ aws_instance.test
    ami:                          "ami-c5eabbf5" => "ami-c5eabbf5"
    associate_public_ip_address:  "false" => "<computed>"
    availability_zone:            "us-west-2a" => "<computed>"
    ebs_block_device.#:           "0" => "<computed>"
    ephemeral_block_device.#:     "0" => "<computed>"
    instance_state:               "running" => "<computed>"
    instance_type:                "t2.micro" => "t2.micro"
    ipv6_address_count:           "1" => "0" (forces new resource)
    ipv6_addresses.#:             "1" => "1"
    ipv6_addresses.0:             "2600:1f14:bb2:e501::10" => "2600:1f14:bb2:e501::10"
    key_name:                     "" => "<computed>"
    network_interface.#:          "0" => "<computed>"
    network_interface_id:         "eni-d19115ec" => "<computed>"
    placement_group:              "" => "<computed>"
    primary_network_interface_id: "eni-d19115ec" => "<computed>"
    private_dns:                  "ip-10-20-1-252.us-west-2.compute.internal" => "<computed>"
    private_ip:                   "10.20.1.252" => "<computed>"
    public_dns:                   "" => "<computed>"
    public_ip:                    "" => "<computed>"
    root_block_device.#:          "1" => "<computed>"
    security_groups.#:            "0" => "<computed>"
    source_dest_check:            "true" => "true"
    subnet_id:                    "subnet-3fdfb476" => "subnet-3fdfb476"
    tags.%:                       "1" => "1"
    tags.Name:                    "stack72" => "stack72"
    tenancy:                      "default" => "<computed>"
    volume_tags.%:                "0" => "<computed>"
    vpc_security_group_ids.#:     "1" => "<computed>"
```

It now works as expected:

```
% terraform plan                                                                                 ✹ ✭
[WARN] /Users/stacko/Code/go/bin/terraform-provider-aws overrides an internal plugin for aws-provider.
  If you did not expect to see this message you will need to remove the old plugin.
  See https://www.terraform.io/docs/internals/internal-plugins.html
Refreshing Terraform state in-memory prior to plan...
The refreshed state will be used to calculate this plan, but will not be
persisted to local or remote state storage.

aws_vpc.foo: Refreshing state... (ID: vpc-fa61669d)
aws_subnet.foo: Refreshing state... (ID: subnet-3fdfb476)
aws_internet_gateway.foo: Refreshing state... (ID: igw-70629a17)
aws_route_table.test: Refreshing state... (ID: rtb-0a52e16c)
aws_instance.test: Refreshing state... (ID: i-0971755345296aca5)
aws_route_table_association.a: Refreshing state... (ID: rtbassoc-b12493c8)
No changes. Infrastructure is up-to-date.

This means that Terraform did not detect any differences between your
configuration and real physical resources that exist. As a result, Terraform
doesn't need to do anything.
```
stack72 added a commit that referenced this issue May 10, 2017
Fixes: #14032

When you are using an IPv6 address directly to an instance, it was
causing the ipv6_address_count to try and ForceNew resource. It wasn't
marked as computed

I was able to see this here:

```
-/+ aws_instance.test
    ami:                          "ami-c5eabbf5" => "ami-c5eabbf5"
    associate_public_ip_address:  "false" => "<computed>"
    availability_zone:            "us-west-2a" => "<computed>"
    ebs_block_device.#:           "0" => "<computed>"
    ephemeral_block_device.#:     "0" => "<computed>"
    instance_state:               "running" => "<computed>"
    instance_type:                "t2.micro" => "t2.micro"
    ipv6_address_count:           "1" => "0" (forces new resource)
    ipv6_addresses.#:             "1" => "1"
    ipv6_addresses.0:             "2600:1f14:bb2:e501::10" => "2600:1f14:bb2:e501::10"
    key_name:                     "" => "<computed>"
    network_interface.#:          "0" => "<computed>"
    network_interface_id:         "eni-d19115ec" => "<computed>"
    placement_group:              "" => "<computed>"
    primary_network_interface_id: "eni-d19115ec" => "<computed>"
    private_dns:                  "ip-10-20-1-252.us-west-2.compute.internal" => "<computed>"
    private_ip:                   "10.20.1.252" => "<computed>"
    public_dns:                   "" => "<computed>"
    public_ip:                    "" => "<computed>"
    root_block_device.#:          "1" => "<computed>"
    security_groups.#:            "0" => "<computed>"
    source_dest_check:            "true" => "true"
    subnet_id:                    "subnet-3fdfb476" => "subnet-3fdfb476"
    tags.%:                       "1" => "1"
    tags.Name:                    "stack72" => "stack72"
    tenancy:                      "default" => "<computed>"
    volume_tags.%:                "0" => "<computed>"
    vpc_security_group_ids.#:     "1" => "<computed>"
```

It now works as expected:

```
% terraform plan                                                                                 ✹ ✭
[WARN] /Users/stacko/Code/go/bin/terraform-provider-aws overrides an internal plugin for aws-provider.
  If you did not expect to see this message you will need to remove the old plugin.
  See https://www.terraform.io/docs/internals/internal-plugins.html
Refreshing Terraform state in-memory prior to plan...
The refreshed state will be used to calculate this plan, but will not be
persisted to local or remote state storage.

aws_vpc.foo: Refreshing state... (ID: vpc-fa61669d)
aws_subnet.foo: Refreshing state... (ID: subnet-3fdfb476)
aws_internet_gateway.foo: Refreshing state... (ID: igw-70629a17)
aws_route_table.test: Refreshing state... (ID: rtb-0a52e16c)
aws_instance.test: Refreshing state... (ID: i-0971755345296aca5)
aws_route_table_association.a: Refreshing state... (ID: rtbassoc-b12493c8)
No changes. Infrastructure is up-to-date.

This means that Terraform did not detect any differences between your
configuration and real physical resources that exist. As a result, Terraform
doesn't need to do anything.
```
sean- pushed a commit to sean-/terraform that referenced this issue May 10, 2017
Fixes: hashicorp#14032

When you are using an IPv6 address directly to an instance, it was
causing the ipv6_address_count to try and ForceNew resource. It wasn't
marked as computed

I was able to see this here:

```
-/+ aws_instance.test
    ami:                          "ami-c5eabbf5" => "ami-c5eabbf5"
    associate_public_ip_address:  "false" => "<computed>"
    availability_zone:            "us-west-2a" => "<computed>"
    ebs_block_device.#:           "0" => "<computed>"
    ephemeral_block_device.#:     "0" => "<computed>"
    instance_state:               "running" => "<computed>"
    instance_type:                "t2.micro" => "t2.micro"
    ipv6_address_count:           "1" => "0" (forces new resource)
    ipv6_addresses.#:             "1" => "1"
    ipv6_addresses.0:             "2600:1f14:bb2:e501::10" => "2600:1f14:bb2:e501::10"
    key_name:                     "" => "<computed>"
    network_interface.#:          "0" => "<computed>"
    network_interface_id:         "eni-d19115ec" => "<computed>"
    placement_group:              "" => "<computed>"
    primary_network_interface_id: "eni-d19115ec" => "<computed>"
    private_dns:                  "ip-10-20-1-252.us-west-2.compute.internal" => "<computed>"
    private_ip:                   "10.20.1.252" => "<computed>"
    public_dns:                   "" => "<computed>"
    public_ip:                    "" => "<computed>"
    root_block_device.#:          "1" => "<computed>"
    security_groups.#:            "0" => "<computed>"
    source_dest_check:            "true" => "true"
    subnet_id:                    "subnet-3fdfb476" => "subnet-3fdfb476"
    tags.%:                       "1" => "1"
    tags.Name:                    "stack72" => "stack72"
    tenancy:                      "default" => "<computed>"
    volume_tags.%:                "0" => "<computed>"
    vpc_security_group_ids.#:     "1" => "<computed>"
```

It now works as expected:

```
% terraform plan                                                                                 ✹ ✭
[WARN] /Users/stacko/Code/go/bin/terraform-provider-aws overrides an internal plugin for aws-provider.
  If you did not expect to see this message you will need to remove the old plugin.
  See https://www.terraform.io/docs/internals/internal-plugins.html
Refreshing Terraform state in-memory prior to plan...
The refreshed state will be used to calculate this plan, but will not be
persisted to local or remote state storage.

aws_vpc.foo: Refreshing state... (ID: vpc-fa61669d)
aws_subnet.foo: Refreshing state... (ID: subnet-3fdfb476)
aws_internet_gateway.foo: Refreshing state... (ID: igw-70629a17)
aws_route_table.test: Refreshing state... (ID: rtb-0a52e16c)
aws_instance.test: Refreshing state... (ID: i-0971755345296aca5)
aws_route_table_association.a: Refreshing state... (ID: rtbassoc-b12493c8)
No changes. Infrastructure is up-to-date.

This means that Terraform did not detect any differences between your
configuration and real physical resources that exist. As a result, Terraform
doesn't need to do anything.
```
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 12, 2020

I'm going to lock this issue because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues.

If you have found a problem that seems similar to this, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further.

@ghost ghost locked and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 12, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants