Should a node belong to only one topology?

[jfremy]

I know this is a little late and this may have been discussed already (though I did not see mention of that in the topology pull request thread), but why is the Topology property of NodeGetInfoResponse not a repeated field?

In the zone / rack scenario, I agree this is not needed but if you think about topology being tied to access to a given network, then a node might belong to multiple topologies. So a repeated field would make sense in that case.
Am I missing something or is that case not covered right now?

[jdef]

Two networks like san1 and san2? My assumption is that you'd have two plugin instances, one for each san because the configurations for each would be different. Do you have a different scenario? If so, please elaborate

[jfremy]

In our case, we have a single management system that is used to configure the storage assignment from multiple storage servers. There are strong "topological" constraints (based on the network you can access). And a client server might belong to multiple networks which would translate to distinct topologies.
So there is just a single configuration (how to contact the management server)

[jfremy]

Does the use case I described make sense? Or would you need more details?

[saad-ali]

Conclusion on the CSI call for this was that, let's start with figuring out how COs support multi-network environments. Once that is nailed down, we can look at how to best support it in CSI.