[WIP] Add the Packet provider

[displague]

I'm drafting this PR early to facilitate conversation and to add context to any provider creation questions that come up in the process.

I've included #1112 from @smarterclayton in this PR with the intention of addressing PR feedback fro #1112 while adding my own observations.

I am happy to rebase and squash away the messy commits that will make their way into this PR along the way.

---

Maintainers, it's not clear to me what todo items I should aim for here. Feel free to edit this PR description to include appropriate bullets for a Platform integration

This PR:

• Implements the enhancement described in enhancement proposal for Equinix Metal IPI enhancements#436
• Establishes the Packet Platform configuration using common parameters from the Packet API.
• Depends on [WIP] Equinix Metal Support machine-api-operator#753
  • Depends on Add support for Equinix Metal cloud-credential-operator#283
• Depends on Add EquinixMetal config api types api#784
• Depends on Start work on equinix metal provider cluster-api-provider-equinix-metal#1

[openshift-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
To complete the pull request process, please assign abhinavdahiya
You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @abhinavdahiya in a comment when ready.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[openshift-ci-robot]

Hi @displague. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a openshift member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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/test-infra repository.

[openshift-ci-robot]

The following users are mentioned in OWNERS file(s) but are untrusted for the following reasons. One way to make the user trusted is to add them as members of the openshift org. You can then trigger verification by writing /verify-owners in a comment.

• displague
  • User is not a member of the org. User is not a collaborator. Satisfy at least one of these conditions to make the user trusted.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@displague: PR needs rebase.

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/test-infra repository.

[russellb]

Hi @displague ! It would be great to start by writing up an enhancement here: https://github.com/openshift/enhancements

I think a design document would be appropriate to discuss the various important decision points about how the packet platform will be integrated. Those questions span more than just the installer repository. There's a document we wrote that highlighted some of the areas we expect to discuss for packet. Hopefully you have it?

Thanks!

[displague]

Hi @russellb! I have received a few documents about this and we broadly have approaches in mind for the expectations.

I'd be happy to start by opening an enhancements issue, but I don't appear to have access to that repository (404).

[russellb]

Hi @russellb! I have received a few documents about this and we broadly have approaches in mind for the expectations.

I'd be happy to start by opening an enhancements issue, but I don't appear to have access to that repository (404).

sorry, I had a typo in the repo name. Give it another try.

[displague]

@russellb I see it now (typo). What makes the most sense for this?

A single document here:
https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/tree/master/enhancements/installer

This is what I generally see for providers. BareMetal documents appear in a few other locations, but I'm not sure if I will need to explore additional enhancement areas outside of the provider scope.

[russellb]

@russellb I see it now (typo). What makes the most sense for this?

A single document here:
https://github.com/openshift/enhancements/tree/master/enhancements/installer

This is what I generally see for providers. BareMetal documents appear in a few other locations, but I'm not sure if I will need to explore additional enhancement areas outside of the provider scope.

This repo didn't always exist, so there may not be a perfect example to follow. I'd create a document just in the root enhancements directory since it applies to more than a single category. For example, it probably touches on things related to installer, network, machine-config, machine-api, rhcos, and storage`. Don't worry about getting it perfect. I'm just hoping we can touch on all the important design points before you have to write all of the code.

[displague]

Moving to #4472