You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Moved from #598, so the question can be discussed in the RFC category.
The question
ADR-0020 puts tenancy on a cluster-per-tenant axis. Does that model still hold, or has the platform moved toward several tenants in one shared inventory?
What the plan proposes
The section numbers below refer to the plan linked at the end, as renumbered on 2026-10-20.
Section 6.1 proposes a declared deployment posture: one dmfdeploy installation has exactly one NetBox media tenant. A second tenant would be a separate installation. Isolation is by separation, not by filtering inside a shared inventory.
Section 6.1 is explicit that this is a posture, not a property of the code. The console's single tenancy mode applies no filter at all.
Under that posture, section 6.1 says a blank workload container needs no per-container tenant stamp. It also says scoped mode, the tenant and site terms of the existing contract, and property 4 all stay.
Section 6.1 keeps three things called "tenant" apart: the shared NetBox tenant DMF (ADR-0039), the media tenant (ADR-0020), and the console's media tenancy setting. The discussion suggested that the tenancy case for NetBox plugin models might be hollow because of ADR-0039 and ADR-0020. The shared DMF tenant and the ADR-0020 media-tenant axis are separate, so the shared infrastructure tenant does not settle the media-tenant question.
ADR-0020 Mode B is Proposed. It does not require one NetBox per cluster, and it does not forbid several tenant rows in a shared inventory.
What would change the answer
A decision to support several media tenants in one inventory. The plan says the rule against disclosing another tenant's workload names would then need a real ownership join (section 5, property 4; section 6.1).
A change to ADR-0020 itself, for example accepting or rejecting Mode B.
Evidence that operators run, or want to run, one installation for several customers.
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
dmfdeploy
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Moved from #598, so the question can be discussed in the RFC category.
The question
ADR-0020 puts tenancy on a cluster-per-tenant axis. Does that model still hold, or has the platform moved toward several tenants in one shared inventory?
What the plan proposes
The section numbers below refer to the plan linked at the end, as renumbered on 2026-10-20.
singletenancy mode applies no filter at all.scopedmode, the tenant and site terms of the existing contract, and property 4 all stay.DMF(ADR-0039), the media tenant (ADR-0020), and the console's media tenancy setting. The discussion suggested that the tenancy case for NetBox plugin models might be hollow because of ADR-0039 and ADR-0020. The sharedDMFtenant and the ADR-0020 media-tenant axis are separate, so the shared infrastructure tenant does not settle the media-tenant question.What would change the answer
Links
This is a request for comment. Answering it does not start any work.
All reactions