| *** banix has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 00:05 | |
| *** mestery has quit IRC | 00:23 | |
| *** peristeri has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 00:29 | |
| *** banix has quit IRC | 00:31 | |
| *** yamahata has quit IRC | 00:34 | |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC | 00:36 | |
| *** cjellick has quit IRC | 00:41 | |
| *** d0ugal has quit IRC | 00:53 | |
| *** banix has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 00:56 | |
| *** d0ugal has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 01:07 | |
| *** eguz has quit IRC | 01:18 | |
| *** devlaps1 has quit IRC | 01:36 | |
| *** peristeri has quit IRC | 01:42 | |
| *** alexpilotti has quit IRC | 01:47 | |
| *** yamahata has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 01:58 | |
| *** vkozhukalov has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 02:31 | |
| *** devlaps has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:03 | |
| *** banix has quit IRC | 03:07 | |
| *** wchrisj has quit IRC | 03:43 | |
| *** mestery has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:51 | |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 04:14 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 04:16 | |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 04:18 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 04:25 | |
| *** briancurtin has quit IRC | 04:25 | |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC | 04:25 | |
| *** mestery has quit IRC | 04:25 | |
| *** briancurtin has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 04:26 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 04:27 | |
| *** eghobo has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 04:27 | |
| *** vkozhukalov has quit IRC | 04:28 | |
| *** dguitarbite has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 05:17 | |
| *** devlaps has quit IRC | 05:43 | |
| *** tmazur has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 05:46 | |
| *** tqtran has quit IRC | 06:07 | |
| *** saju_m has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 06:19 | |
| *** lpetrut has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 06:44 | |
| *** eghobo has quit IRC | 06:44 | |
| *** vkozhukalov has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:02 | |
| *** jcoufal has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:04 | |
| *** saju_m has quit IRC | 07:13 | |
| *** lpetrut has quit IRC | 07:29 | |
| *** mrunge has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:32 | |
| *** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:36 | |
| *** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:37 | |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 07:37 | |
| *** ttrifonov_zZzz is now known as ttrifonov | 07:40 | |
| *** MaxV has quit IRC | 07:47 | |
| *** johnthetubaguy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:51 | |
| *** johnthetubaguy1 has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:54 | |
| *** johnthetubaguy has quit IRC | 07:54 | |
| *** markmcclain has quit IRC | 07:57 | |
| *** banix has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 08:01 | |
| *** vkozhukalov has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 08:02 | |
| *** lpetrut has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 08:15 | |
| *** lpetrut_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 08:18 | |
| *** lpetrut has quit IRC | 08:19 | |
| *** tmazur has quit IRC | 08:20 | |
| *** banix_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 08:40 | |
| *** banix has quit IRC | 08:41 | |
| *** banix_ is now known as banix | 08:41 | |
| *** banix has quit IRC | 08:50 | |
| *** amotoki has quit IRC | 08:51 | |
| *** banix has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 08:52 | |
| *** banix has quit IRC | 08:52 | |
| *** jcoufal has quit IRC | 08:59 | |
| *** jcoufal has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 09:00 | |
| *** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 09:02 | |
| *** johnthetubaguy1 has quit IRC | 09:23 | |
| *** MaxV has quit IRC | 09:42 | |
| *** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 09:52 | |
| *** yamahata has quit IRC | 10:15 | |
| *** nacim has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 10:24 | |
| *** MaxV has quit IRC | 10:30 | |
| *** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 10:32 | |
| *** MaxV_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 10:54 | |
| *** MaxV has quit IRC | 10:57 | |
| *** saju_m has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 11:21 | |
| *** MaxV_ has quit IRC | 11:27 | |
| *** mwagner_ is now known as mwagner_notHere | 11:29 | |
| *** yamahata has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 11:40 | |
| *** jcoufal has quit IRC | 11:52 | |
| *** jcoufal has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 11:55 | |
| *** lblanchard has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:00 | |
| *** mwagner_lap has quit IRC | 12:00 | |
| *** wchrisj has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:04 | |
| *** yamahata has quit IRC | 12:06 | |
| *** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:19 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 12:27 | |
| *** jcoufal has quit IRC | 12:30 | |
| *** jcoufal has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:30 | |
| *** xuhanp has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:47 | |
| *** MaxV has quit IRC | 12:47 | |
| *** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:47 | |
| *** jpomero has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:49 | |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:55 | |
| *** mfer has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:04 | |
| *** mrunge has quit IRC | 13:08 | |
| *** johnthetubaguy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:09 | |
| *** johnthetubaguy1 has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:12 | |
| *** mwagner_lap has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:12 | |
| *** johnthetubaguy has quit IRC | 13:13 | |
| *** julim has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:16 | |
| *** yamahata has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:18 | |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 13:20 | |
| *** MaxV has quit IRC | 13:34 | |
| *** nacim has quit IRC | 13:34 | |
| *** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:38 | |
| *** tqtran has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:45 | |
| *** nacim has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:51 | |
| *** peristeri has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:51 | |
| *** dguitarbite has quit IRC | 14:00 | |
| *** lblanchard has quit IRC | 14:12 | |
| *** lblanchard has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:13 | |
| *** amotoki has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:18 | |
| *** dguitarbite has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:30 | |
| *** alexpilotti has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:39 | |
| *** mestery has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:47 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:53 | |
| *** banix has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:59 | |
| *** julim_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:00 | |
| *** julim has quit IRC | 15:01 | |
| *** yamahata has quit IRC | 15:03 | |
| *** mestery has quit IRC | 15:05 | |
| *** yamahata has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:05 | |
| *** yamahata has quit IRC | 15:09 | |
| *** dguitarbite has quit IRC | 15:09 | |
| *** yamahata has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:10 | |
| *** wchrisj has quit IRC | 15:18 | |
| *** lsmola_ has quit IRC | 15:19 | |
| *** peristeri has quit IRC | 15:32 | |
| *** perister1 has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:32 | |
| *** johnthetubaguy1 is now known as johnthetubaguy | 15:33 | |
| *** lsmola_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:34 | |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:37 | |
| *** saju_m has quit IRC | 15:43 | |
| *** cjellick has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:45 | |
| *** cjellick has quit IRC | 15:45 | |
| *** cjellick has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:46 | |
| *** wchrisj has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:52 | |
| *** mestery has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:01 | |
| *** xuhanp has quit IRC | 16:01 | |
| *** eghobo has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:04 | |
| *** eghobo has quit IRC | 16:04 | |
| *** eghobo has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:05 | |
| *** eghobo has quit IRC | 16:05 | |
| *** wchrisj has quit IRC | 16:05 | |
| *** eghobo has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:06 | |
| *** lsmola_ has quit IRC | 16:06 | |
| *** wchrisj has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:07 | |
| *** Sukhdev has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:10 | |
| *** wchrisj has quit IRC | 16:12 | |
| *** lsmola_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:20 | |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:24 | |
| *** tjones1 has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:25 | |
| *** dansmith has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:27 | |
| *** nacim has quit IRC | 16:30 | |
| tjones1 | irc://chat.freenode.net:6667/#startmeeting NovaBugScrub | 16:30 |
|---|---|---|
| tjones1 | anyone here for bug scrubbing? | 16:31 |
| tjones1 | #startmeeting NovaBugScrub | 16:31 |
| openstack | Meeting started Wed Mar 26 16:31:26 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is tjones1. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 16:31 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 16:31 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: NovaBugScrub)" | 16:31 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'novabugscrub' | 16:31 |
| tjones1 | *listening….* | 16:32 |
| *** tqtran has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:33 | |
| alexpilotti | hi there! | 16:33 |
| tjones1 | hi alex | 16:33 |
| tjones1 | so far it's just you and me | 16:33 |
| alexpilotti | heh | 16:33 |
| alexpilotti | let me take teh list of hyper-v bugs then :-) | 16:33 |
| tjones1 | got a bunch of untagged bugs - want to take a look and see if any are yours? | 16:34 |
| tjones1 | https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bugs?field.tag=-*&field.status%3Alist=NEW | 16:34 |
| tjones1 | im just going to start through the list. there were 6 last night and 23 this morning. i already tagged several. clearly people are testing! which is good | 16:34 |
| alexpilotti | looking! | 16:35 |
| tjones1 | great - im going to start in case others join in and want to help out too | 16:36 |
| *** devlaps has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:36 | |
| tjones1 | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1297796 | 16:36 |
| *** wchrisj has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:36 | |
| tjones1 | not sure what to use for client issues | 16:36 |
| tjones1 | going to skip for now then | 16:37 |
| tjones1 | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1291396 | 16:38 |
| tjones1 | again not sure so skipping | 16:38 |
| tjones1 | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1295608 | 16:39 |
| tjones1 | guessing compute | 16:39 |
| tjones1 | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1296690 | 16:39 |
| tjones1 | db | 16:39 |
| tjones1 | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1296808 | 16:40 |
| tjones1 | networking | 16:40 |
| tjones1 | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1296913 | 16:40 |
| alexpilotti | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1295608 shoud specify the compute driver IMO | 16:40 |
| alexpilotti | which is libvirt | 16:41 |
| *** melwitt has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:41 | |
| tjones1 | thanks | 16:41 |
| tjones1 | i'll change it | 16:41 |
| tjones1 | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1296913 | 16:41 |
| alexpilotti | so the caption should be: ""QCOW2" image has a problem in Creating an instance on libvirt Compute node" | 16:41 |
| tjones1 | scheduler | 16:41 |
| tjones1 | this one could be a big deal im thinking - regression if it is a real bug | 16:42 |
| alexpilotti | agreed | 16:43 |
| tjones1 | and by "this one" i meant irc://chat.freenode.net:6667/#link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1296913 | 16:43 |
| tjones1 | #action show https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1296913 to russellb | 16:43 |
| tjones1 | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1296967 | 16:43 |
| alexpilotti | compute | 16:44 |
| tjones1 | compute and havana (not sure how to tag it to havana) | 16:44 |
| tjones1 | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1296995 | 16:45 |
| tjones1 | doc | 16:45 |
| melwitt | in general I don't think bugs get tagged to specific releases | 16:45 |
| tjones1 | hey melwitt - ok thanks. Could you take a look at the 1st 2 in the list ? i did not know what to make of them | 16:46 |
| tjones1 | https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1297796 | 16:46 |
| tjones1 | https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1291396 | 16:46 |
| tjones1 | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1297052 this one asked for logs | 16:47 |
| tjones1 | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1297261 | 16:47 |
| melwitt | seems like 1297796 should be under novaclient, not nova | 16:48 |
| *** mestery has quit IRC | 16:49 | |
| tjones1 | thanks | 16:49 |
| tjones1 | moved it | 16:49 |
| melwitt | 1291396 has to do with nova baremetal and ironic, they need exact match in scheduler filter, so scheduler I think | 16:50 |
| tjones1 | ok thanks | 16:50 |
| melwitt | i.e. they want to add a scheduler filter to support baremetal | 16:50 |
| tjones1 | ah ok - prob not icehouse ;-) as they said | 16:50 |
| alexpilotti | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1297261 look slike oslo | 16:50 |
| *** vkozhukalov has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:51 | |
| alexpilotti | "The problematic code is at least: | 16:51 |
| alexpilotti | "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/nova/openstack/common/importutils.py | 16:51 |
| tjones1 | oh ok - thanks | 16:51 |
| tjones1 | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1297309 | 16:52 |
| tjones1 | matt says that's a dup of 1282842 | 16:53 |
| *** Louis__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:53 | |
| tjones1 | looking at logstash... | 16:54 |
| *** vkozhukalov has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:54 | |
| tjones1 | don't think this is necessarily an error - the token auth is failing | 16:55 |
| tjones1 | but it does look like a dup | 16:55 |
| tjones1 | im gonna say network and let them decide for sure | 16:56 |
| tjones1 | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1297375 | 16:56 |
| tjones1 | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1297375 | 16:57 |
| tjones1 | oops | 16:57 |
| tjones1 | sill on that one | 16:58 |
| tjones1 | db perhaps | 16:58 |
| melwitt | I might put db and compute on that one. one of them needs to lock | 16:58 |
| tjones1 | ok | 16:58 |
| tjones1 | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1297635 | 16:59 |
| melwitt | volumes? | 16:59 |
| tjones1 | rc issue? | 17:00 |
| tjones1 | potential? | 17:00 |
| tjones1 | ah they are on havana | 17:00 |
| tjones1 | but could still be an issue | 17:00 |
| *** Louis__ has quit IRC | 17:01 | |
| tjones1 | #action point out https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1297635 to russelb just in case | 17:02 |
| melwitt | at best rc potential, I don't know how severe it needs to be at this point to be that | 17:02 |
| tjones1 | i think pretty darn severe - but race condition always gets a 2nd look just in case | 17:02 |
| tjones1 | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1297642 | 17:02 |
| tjones1 | this one seems like a corner case to me but could be wrong | 17:03 |
| *** briancurtin has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:03 | |
| melwitt | yeah I think it's best to have it looked at to make sure | 17:03 |
| tjones1 | compute then? | 17:03 |
| melwitt | yeah compute | 17:04 |
| tjones1 | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1297642 | 17:04 |
| melwitt | I've seen related bugs too on how state is handled when compute goes away and rpc timeout occurs. generally hangs in a "-ing" state | 17:05 |
| *** wchrisj has quit IRC | 17:05 | |
| tjones1 | not good | 17:06 |
| tjones1 | so?? scheduler?? | 17:07 |
| melwitt | I think just compute. I think in these cases if they issue "reset state" it'll go to active or error depending | 17:08 |
| *** mestery has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:09 | |
| tjones1 | ok | 17:10 |
| tjones1 | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1295674 | 17:10 |
| tjones1 | this is a process bug | 17:10 |
| tjones1 | no idea how to tag it. | 17:11 |
| tjones1 | woa - check out this one (just opened) #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1297962 | 17:11 |
| melwitt | I think it would just be untagged | 17:13 |
| tjones1 | ok i will leave the process bug | 17:13 |
| tjones1 | but the other one? either a misconfig or a big deal? | 17:14 |
| melwitt | can't tell from the information that's there | 17:14 |
| tjones1 | yeah i asked for more info | 17:15 |
| tjones1 | so we are done! and only 15 minutes later | 17:15 |
| tjones1 | peeking at rc bugs | 17:15 |
| tjones1 | #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/icehouse-rc1 | 17:15 |
| tjones1 | 2 new this morning (from the ones we just tagged) dansmith must be lurking again | 17:16 |
| tjones1 | the other 3 are moving - we are trying to cut rc1 on friday. | 17:17 |
| tjones1 | anything else from a bugs point of view?? | 17:17 |
| tjones1 | listening | 17:18 |
| tjones1 | ok then - thanks melwitt and alexpilotti | 17:18 |
| tjones1 | #endmeeting | 17:18 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings" | 17:18 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Wed Mar 26 17:18:28 2014 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 17:18 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/novabugscrub/2014/novabugscrub.2014-03-26-16.31.html | 17:18 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/novabugscrub/2014/novabugscrub.2014-03-26-16.31.txt | 17:18 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/novabugscrub/2014/novabugscrub.2014-03-26-16.31.log.html | 17:18 |
| *** melwitt has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:19 | |
| *** OSM has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:20 | |
| *** MaxV has quit IRC | 17:22 | |
| *** SridarK has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:26 | |
| *** mandeep has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:26 | |
| *** s3wong has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:26 | |
| *** mandeep has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:26 | |
| *** mandeep has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:26 | |
| *** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:26 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK mandeep s3wong: hi! | 17:30 |
| *** prasadv has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:30 | |
| banix | hi all | 17:30 |
| prasadv | hi | 17:30 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix prasadv: Hi | 17:30 |
| mandeep | Hi | 17:30 |
| SridarK | Hi SumitNaiksatam: and all | 17:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i think swami was planning to join | 17:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: there? | 17:31 |
| enikanorov_ | SumitNaiksatam: hi | 17:31 |
| enikanorov_ | yep | 17:31 |
| *** tjones1 has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:31 | |
| s3wong | Neutorn advanced service meeting? | 17:31 |
| *** s3wong has quit IRC | 17:31 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: hi | 17:31 |
| *** ycombinator has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:31 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | seems we lost s3wong | 17:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok lets get started | 17:31 |
| cgoncalves | hi | 17:31 |
| *** Swami has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:31 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | cgoncalves: hi | 17:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #startmeeting Networking Advanced Services | 17:32 |
| openstack | Meeting started Wed Mar 26 17:32:00 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is SumitNaiksatam. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 17:32 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 17:32 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: Networking Advanced Services)" | 17:32 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'networking_advanced_services' | 17:32 |
| Swami | hi | 17:32 |
| *** s3wong has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:32 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | Swami: hi | 17:32 |
| s3wong | Hello | 17:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #info Meeting agenda: #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/AdvancedServices | 17:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: yes, right meeting :-) | 17:32 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: good to know | 17:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic Flavors Update | 17:32 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Flavors Update (Meeting topic: Networking Advanced Services)" | 17:32 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/FlavorFramework | 17:33 |
| enikanorov_ | on flavors, PoC code that would illustrate the idea is almost ready | 17:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: anything changed between last week and now? | 17:33 |
| enikanorov_ | i plan to publish it today | 17:33 |
| *** lpetrut_ has quit IRC | 17:33 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: thats is awesome | 17:33 |
| banix | Still cold around here :) | 17:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: sweet, was going to ask you if there is private branch | 17:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: :-) | 17:33 |
| enikanorov_ | so probably once it done we could hve some discussion in gerrit also | 17:33 |
| s3wong | enikanorov_: do you have the review link (or soon)? | 17:33 |
| enikanorov_ | s3wong: i'll send a notice, not yet | 17:34 |
| s3wong | enikanorov_: thanks! | 17:34 |
| *** lpetrut has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:34 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: we can wait for the patch, but in terns of design, anything changed? | 17:34 |
| enikanorov_ | no, i don't think so | 17:35 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: our understanding was that beyond certain minimal attributes this was most going to be key:value pairs | 17:35 |
| Swami | flavor_type says "public' or 'internal". what does public or internal mean. | 17:35 |
| *** Kanzhe has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:35 | |
| s3wong | enikanorov_: still just a additional tag then, right? | 17:35 |
| enikanorov_ | Swami: probably i need to update the wiki, 'internal' seems to be unnecessary | 17:36 |
| *** MaxV has quit IRC | 17:36 | |
| enikanorov_ | SumitNaiksatam: yes | 17:36 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: per Swami's comment earlier, i think the "flavor type" is confusing | 17:36 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: if we need at all | 17:37 |
| enikanorov_ | agree, and there no such attr in the PoC code | 17:37 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: do we? | 17:37 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: okay, so we will wait for the code | 17:37 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: perhaps a quick update of your wiki might help | 17:37 |
| enikanorov_ | yes, I'll do that | 17:38 |
| Swami | ok thanks, | 17:38 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: thanks | 17:38 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: is there any notion of "namespaces" for the flavor names? | 17:38 |
| enikanorov_ | hmm, no... i think that could be solved by service_type, so different services could have flavors with same name | 17:39 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: so you are still keeping the service_type for association with the "provider"? | 17:39 |
| enikanorov_ | basically i'm keeping service_type for convenience of consuption | 17:39 |
| enikanorov_ | horizon could filter flavors by the serrvice type | 17:40 |
| enikanorov_ | or otherwise full set of flavors may be confusing to the user | 17:40 |
| Swami | enikanorov: can you provide some examples of "service_type" in this use case. | 17:40 |
| enikanorov_ | loadbalancer, vpn, firewall, etc | 17:40 |
| enikanorov_ | predefined network services that we already have | 17:41 |
| enikanorov_ | (static set) | 17:41 |
| Swami | enikanorov: thanks | 17:41 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: sorry, i was confusing the "service_type" attribute with the "service_type" in STF | 17:41 |
| enikanorov_ | well, if you're talking about providers - it's the same attribute, by nature | 17:42 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: ok | 17:42 |
| banix | Will the "service in a VM" be eventually a service type? | 17:42 |
| enikanorov_ | banix: no | 17:43 |
| prasadv | banix: is service in a VM be different from physical service fi they are from same vendor? | 17:43 |
| enikanorov_ | it's not a service type in the meaning that we use | 17:43 |
| SridarK | perhaps a different flavor ? | 17:44 |
| s3wong | enikanorov_: so once haproxy works on service VM, is it the responsibility of serviceVM framework to define how to distinguish that from current impl? | 17:44 |
| s3wong | or do you see flavor framework allowing tenants to choose? | 17:44 |
| banix | well, my point is we may have a service that does not fit into the known set of services (or more generally we do not know what service it provides) | 17:44 |
| enikanorov_ | s3wong: most probably it will be another driver for service type LOADBALANCER that knows how to deal with haproxy in a VM | 17:44 |
| SumitNaiksatam | yeah, i think there are two points we are discussing here | 17:45 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix and SridarK are referring to a service which is not yet defined in neutron | 17:45 |
| prasadv | banix: I agree. | 17:45 |
| SumitNaiksatam | being realized on a VM | 17:45 |
| prasadv | i think we need a way to provision such a serice which is not defined in Neutron | 17:45 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong is asking about a service known to neutron, being realized on a VM | 17:45 |
| banix | SumitNaiksatam: yes | 17:46 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: and I am talking about known service in VM | 17:46 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong i think your use case js satisfied with this model | 17:46 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: right | 17:46 |
| SumitNaiksatam | per enikanorov_'s response | 17:46 |
| banix | s3wong: right; two different things | 17:46 |
| SumitNaiksatam | that is left to the driver | 17:46 |
| Swami | The services that are not defined in Neutron, should they be added to neutron as a "Service" extension first | 17:46 |
| SumitNaiksatam | coming back to banix and SridarK's point | 17:46 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: actually i was just mentioning different realizations (or implementations from a vendor) could be different flavors | 17:47 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: there is always a possibility of defining a new flavor type, right? | 17:47 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK in that case i think your use case is similar to s3wong's | 17:47 |
| enikanorov_ | SumitNaiksatam: yes. flavors are defined by admin, and could be listed by users | 17:47 |
| banix | swami: not necessarily | 17:47 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so banix's use case | 17:47 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: yes assuming, that the admin defines such a flavor | 17:48 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: yes | 17:48 |
| SumitNaiksatam | the part that is a little inflexible here is about the "admin defining" the flavor | 17:48 |
| SumitNaiksatam | since this is a matter of implementation and configuration | 17:48 |
| s3wong | enikanorov_: so in this case, service_type can be defined by admin? | 17:49 |
| enikanorov_ | s3wong: defined - no, specified - yes | 17:49 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we don't a framework to configure this dynamicallhy | 17:49 |
| SumitNaiksatam | dynamically | 17:49 |
| enikanorov_ | so may be trying to answer a question on how to distinguish haproxy-on-host vs haproxy-on-vm | 17:49 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: i see this as an evolution of the "flavor" framework | 17:49 |
| enikanorov_ | i don't see why a user may want to know that | 17:49 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: do you agree? | 17:49 |
| banix | SumitNaiksatam: yes to your earlier comments and this one too | 17:49 |
| Kanzhe | banix: SumitNaiksatam enikanorov_ Service-type should be a list of Neutron services and a generic type for all services that is not defined by Neutron. | 17:50 |
| enikanorov_ | SumitNaiksatam: defining a service type is something that affects neutron core very deeply | 17:50 |
| enikanorov_ | i'm not sure we wand to really define service_type dynamically | 17:50 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: that is an artifact of the design today | 17:50 |
| s3wong | enikanorov_: user may not want to know whether haproxy runs on VM or lxc? | 17:51 |
| banix | kanzhe: or having one specific to those realized in a VM; maybe? | 17:51 |
| enikanorov_ | in my mind that means that we would need to load a plugin that supports this new service type | 17:51 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: and i agree that it cannot change overnight | 17:51 |
| Kanzhe | Neutron's XaaS API is a service-configuration API. If a service is configured OOB, then admin should be able to make it available to tenants. | 17:51 |
| enikanorov_ | SumitNaiksatam: so it goes don to dynamic plugin loading | 17:51 |
| enikanorov_ | *down | 17:51 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: it may not be a "generic" plugin | 17:51 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: and that plugin can decide what modules to load dynamically | 17:52 |
| Kanzhe | banix: Whether a service is realized in a VM or physical appliance should be captured by flavors. | 17:52 |
| s3wong | Kanzhe: yes (as enikanorov_ mentioned above) | 17:52 |
| enikanorov_ | anyway, I've seen objections to such kind of dynamic stuff from salv-orlando | 17:52 |
| enikanorov_ | Kanzhe: may be captured by flavors | 17:52 |
| enikanorov_ | but there could be no need | 17:53 |
| banix | kanzhe: agree; was wondering if the service in a VM being defined can be of a flavor on ts own…. | 17:53 |
| Kanzhe | SumitNaiksatam: yes, the "generic" plugiin really just do the insertion. | 17:53 |
| SumitNaiksatam | regardless, i think what we need to agree on is, that if we follow the current path of flavors it should not preclude someone from being able to dynamically define services | 17:53 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i think if we have agreement on that here, we are good for now | 17:53 |
| enikanorov_ | yep. | 17:53 |
| SumitNaiksatam | everyone agree that the current flavors (as defined by enikanorov_ here) will allow that? | 17:54 |
| banix | yes | 17:54 |
| SridarK | yes | 17:54 |
| Kanzhe | enikanorov_: I meant the services other than LB, VPN, FW. | 17:54 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Kanzhe: agree? | 17:54 |
| Kanzhe | SumitNaiksatam: yes. | 17:54 |
| s3wong | Kanzhe SumitNaiksatam: somewhat like ML2 having a generic plugin, and everything else can be "service driver" | 17:54 |
| Swami | yes | 17:54 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: ye | 17:54 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s | 17:54 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok good | 17:54 |
| enikanorov_ | Well, technically, you can specify any service_type because it is merely a string. but with current design it would be pointless | 17:54 |
| SumitNaiksatam | lets wait for enikanorov_'s PoC and take it from there | 17:55 |
| SumitNaiksatam | moving on | 17:55 |
| enikanorov_ | ok. | 17:55 |
| *** s3wong has quit IRC | 17:55 | |
| *** Louis__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:55 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic Group Policy requirements of advanced services | 17:55 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Group Policy requirements of advanced services (Meeting topic: Networking Advanced Services)" | 17:55 | |
| *** s3wong has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:55 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | so we had this on the agenda for the past two weeks | 17:55 |
| SumitNaiksatam | but we did not get to it | 17:56 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i would like to prioritize it this time | 17:56 |
| *** lpetrut has quit IRC | 17:56 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | so essentially for those not familiar with the "group policy" work, we are defining a policy abstraction | 17:57 |
| SumitNaiksatam | each policy is comprised of rules | 17:57 |
| SumitNaiksatam | each rule has a classification, and a corresponding action | 17:57 |
| SumitNaiksatam | one of the actions is "redirect" | 17:57 |
| *** saju_m has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:57 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | redirect could be to a service or a service chain | 17:58 |
| SumitNaiksatam | this is all captured here: #link https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZbOFxAoibZbJmDWx1oOrOsDcov6Cuom5aaBIrupCD9E | 17:58 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so at a high level, those abstractions expect some level of advanced services support from existing neutron abstractions | 17:59 |
| * cgoncalves waves to service chain :) | 17:59 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | in the case of redirect to an independent service | 17:59 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we are somewhat covered (assuming we are able to merge the service_context notion) | 17:59 |
| Kanzhe | SumitNaiksatam: should we get consensus on service insertion framework before go to GP redirect details? | 18:00 |
| banix | One thing we discussed briefly was the insertion context and how that could be differnt for policies ... | 18:00 |
| SumitNaiksatam | one sec | 18:00 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: in that case, service-context needs to be defined outside of group-policy (which has no such knowledge) | 18:00 |
| banix | SumitNaiksatam: gyes, o ahead please | 18:00 |
| banix | yes, go ahead please | 18:00 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Kanzhe: can you clarify what exactly you are referring to as "service insertion framework"? | 18:00 |
| Kanzhe | SumitNaiksatam: insertion context. :-) | 18:01 |
| SumitNaiksatam | just so that we are all on same page | 18:01 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Kanzhe: you mean the "service_context" being introduced here: #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/62599/ | 18:01 |
| Swami | sumitNaiksatam: Is the service insertion context driven by the group policy | 18:01 |
| s3wong | Kanzhe: insertion context, is that the same as service context? | 18:02 |
| SumitNaiksatam | if so we have discussed this in the past two meetings | 18:02 |
| Kanzhe | SumitNaiksatam: s3wong yes. | 18:02 |
| SumitNaiksatam | and i believe we all agree on the need for this | 18:02 |
| Swami | Or service insertion has to be configured first for the service types and then we need to configure the group policy. | 18:02 |
| SumitNaiksatam | hence i am not even bringing that up today | 18:02 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Swami: one sec | 18:02 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Swami: we will get to that | 18:02 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i think we all agree on the need for the service_context for service insertion? | 18:03 |
| Swami | sumit: thanks | 18:03 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: when does the service_context get instantiated - I don't think there is a consensus | 18:03 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok so my question about agreement is in the context of the neutron elemental abstractions | 18:03 |
| SumitNaiksatam | that is without group policy | 18:03 |
| SumitNaiksatam | lets first base line off that | 18:03 |
| Kanzhe | SumitNaiksatam: agree. | 18:04 |
| Swami | sumitNaiksatam: Yes I like that | 18:04 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: the need of service_context, yes - we agreed on that last week | 18:04 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok | 18:04 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: One clarification - since we model the service_context as a service attribute what will we specify ? | 18:05 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so without group policy we think we are good with service_context for inserting existing neutron services as independent entities | 18:05 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: not sure i understand | 18:06 |
| s3wong | SridarK: have we agreed on having service_context as part of service? | 18:06 |
| Kanzhe | SumitNaiksatam: there is still a concern that the current service context is hard for tenant to consume. | 18:06 |
| SridarK | in the redirect | 18:06 |
| SridarK | since service context is not a resource | 18:06 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Kanzhe: the service_context does not always have to be exposed to the user | 18:06 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Kanzhe: or rather it can be optional | 18:06 |
| SridarK | in the redirect do we specify the service instance ? | 18:06 |
| *** s3wong has quit IRC | 18:07 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: hang, we are not yet talking redirect | 18:07 |
| SridarK | ok :-) | 18:07 |
| prasadv | yes service context would be needed for insertion | 18:07 |
| *** jcoufal has quit IRC | 18:07 | |
| *** s3wong has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:07 | |
| Kanzhe | SumitNaiksatam: yes for default insertion. If a service needs to be inserted other than the default, tenant must specify through the service context. | 18:07 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: want to first address that service_context is good for services as they are today (no group policy) | 18:07 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: sound okay so far with service_context? | 18:07 |
| s3wong | Kanzhe: would that be something appropriate for tenant to specify? | 18:08 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: sorry that i am on board with - my confusion was on the redirect - i will wait | 18:08 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: np | 18:08 |
| s3wong | or do tenants consume network services as a service? | 18:08 |
| Kanzhe | s3wong: that was the concern with the current service_context. | 18:08 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: this does not have to be one or the other | 18:08 |
| enikanorov_ | SumitNaiksatam: yes | 18:08 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: ok | 18:08 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: as discussed above, the default consumption model might not require providing the service_context | 18:09 |
| enikanorov_ | sorry, need to step out of pc | 18:09 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: so user may or may not specify it | 18:09 |
| SumitNaiksatam | actually that is what we are doing with the FWaaS patch | 18:10 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: certainly - I just think it is difficult for tenant to specify service_context outside of default | 18:10 |
| *** Sukhdev has quit IRC | 18:10 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: fine, but we don't necessarily take that option away | 18:10 |
| SumitNaiksatam | * don't have to | 18:11 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: OK | 18:11 |
| Swami | sumitNaiksatam: You mentioned that the user need to specify the service_context, so how does Neutron select the service_context? | 18:11 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i think we tend to get rat holed in the discussion about whether service_context is friendly to the user or not, but really its optional | 18:11 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Swami: the service_context has to come from somewhere | 18:12 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Swami: either the user provides it, or the backend infers it | 18:12 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Swami: the service_context is merely a hook to provide this | 18:12 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: well, if it isn't supposed to be specified by users, then we have to think about when the service context gets instantiated | 18:12 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: so it isn't so much about being user friendly, just understanding when do we know where a service is supposed to be inserted | 18:13 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: as of now, when a service gets inserted does not change by the introduction of the service_context | 18:14 |
| mandeep | s3wong: I was hoping the "when/where" question to be driven by policy and "how" to be driven by service-context | 18:14 |
| s3wong | Anyway - group policy and redirect, sorry for diverting the discussion :-) | 18:14 |
| SumitNaiksatam | mandeep: exactly | 18:14 |
| mandeep | SumitNaiksatam: I agree these are orthogonal concerns | 18:14 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok it seems we are more or less in agreement | 18:15 |
| SumitNaiksatam | on the single/independent service as neutron understands it today | 18:15 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so moving on in the context of group policy | 18:16 |
| SumitNaiksatam | now let's address the concerns on if/how the service_context would help for single services | 18:17 |
| mandeep | That way we have a single language for the user to specify service policy - independent of it being security/access issue or QoS or a richer service offered by an external/VM entity | 18:17 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i think i put some folks on hold, please go ahead :-) | 18:17 |
| *** pcm_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:17 | |
| * mandeep was just agreeing with you, just using a lot of text to say that | 18:18 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | mandeep: yeah, i think what you are saying is that the policy will drive the service_context in that case | 18:18 |
| *** s3wong has quit IRC | 18:18 | |
| *** s3wong has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:19 | |
| banix | SumitNaiksatam: the idea is having a policy context as well. right? | 18:19 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: can you elaborate? | 18:19 |
| banix | If I understand it correctly a service oe a service chain gets inserted in a service context and then | 18:20 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: lets break that down a bit | 18:20 |
| banix | the context required for instantiating the service(s) get drived depending on the services… | 18:20 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: before we get to service chains | 18:21 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: lets first address the use case of redirect to a single service | 18:21 |
| banix | sure | 18:21 |
| s3wong | banix: actually I think we need a service context to see where a service is inserted, which may include a chain | 18:21 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: and whether the service_context addresses that | 18:21 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: If we take a fw usecase with a fw created on a set of routers (service context), in the group policy - u would have a classifier and a redirect to that fw instance ? | 18:22 |
| SumitNaiksatam | note that in this case the service_context is internal to the system | 18:22 |
| SumitNaiksatam | the user who is interfacing with the system at the group policy abstraction level does not deal with the service-context directly | 18:22 |
| banix | yes | 18:22 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: ok good | 18:23 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: yes | 18:23 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: so going back to the earlier point, a plugin would need to populate a service_context according to policy? | 18:23 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: yes | 18:23 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: ok makes sense thanks | 18:24 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: this might be concert with the flavor/type of that service | 18:24 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: but we ideally want to hide the service_context abstraction for the group policy user | 18:24 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: in this case, service_context needs to be part of something else other than the actual service object | 18:24 |
| s3wong | or even flavor | 18:25 |
| banix | yes when the policy gets defined (or contracts are defined with consumer and providers specified) …. yes part of the contract/policy | 18:25 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: why, i would argue that it needs to be part of each service so that there is a common programmable hook in each service | 18:25 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: hiding it from group-policy for sure - I don't advocate adding insertion point as part of policy language :-) | 18:26 |
| banix | sumit you were going to breakdown something | 18:26 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: the policy "plugin" populates that service_context, and the service implementation handles it's implementation/insertion | 18:26 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: i was breaking down in to the case of redirect to a single service, versus to a chain | 18:27 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: because a plugin gets policy info, but plugin may not have access to the service object itself | 18:27 |
| banix | SumitNaiksatam: so this implies we do not need a policy context | 18:27 |
| banix | right? | 18:27 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: i would imagine that the policy context you are referring to is the provided contract? | 18:27 |
| banix | yeah | 18:28 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: ok good | 18:28 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: yes, plugin may not directly deal with the service | 18:28 |
| OSM | Do we need to separate service definition (create) and instantiation (launch). Service context needs to be specified to instantion - by policy in some cases | 18:28 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: the redirect can be to a "contract" which wraps the service | 18:29 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i think the discussion is getting a bit muddled because we have to two cases for services (1) neutron services which are already defined and which have their own plugins (that can do the insertion based on the context) | 18:30 |
| *** lpetrut has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:30 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | (2) generic services which are not recognized by neutron, and for which the policy plugin implementation might have to do additional operations | 18:31 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: that means we need to extend EPG to include service | 18:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: probably not | 18:31 |
| banix | s3wong: hopefully not; why? | 18:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: the contract can have a relationship to a service_type | 18:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | folks we are over our time | 18:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | the following meeting is also chaired by me | 18:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so we can go a little over | 18:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i am sure SridarK RajeshMohan and other FWaaS folks won't mind | 18:32 |
| *** s3wong has quit IRC | 18:33 | |
| SridarK | no worries | 18:33 |
| prasadv | sumitnaiksatam: you case (1) means that independent of policy service context needs to be deinfed? | 18:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | however we had another agenda item which Swami had brought up | 18:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | prasadv: no | 18:33 |
| *** s3wong has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:33 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | prasadv: it just means, that we need to figure how we can leverage the existing neutron service implementations within the policy plugin orchestration | 18:34 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: in that case, I still don't understand - in case of not having group-policy - how we can populate service_context | 18:35 |
| SumitNaiksatam | prasadv: so we can have a southbound "plugin driver" mechanism that can handle this | 18:35 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: ok so in case of not having group-policy the simplest way is: | 18:35 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: the backend has a default insertion model, or | 18:35 |
| SumitNaiksatam | and in which case it populates the service-context | 18:36 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: or the user provides the service-context | 18:36 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: backend meaning LBaaS, or even more specific like haproxy driver? | 18:36 |
| prasadv | sumitnaiksatam: is the plugin driver under policy? or service? | 18:36 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: it could be a combination of the service plugin and the service driver | 18:37 |
| RajeshMohan | Hi Sumit | 18:37 |
| SumitNaiksatam | RajeshMohan: hi, we will start FWaaS in a munute | 18:37 |
| RajeshMohan | Ok | 18:38 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i was saying earlier that we had another item on the agenda for this week | 18:39 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Swami: we have run over by a bit, are you okay if we discuss next week> | 18:39 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ? | 18:39 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok folks on the group policy discussion, i think we need to take this discussion to tomorrow's meeting | 18:41 |
| banix | Thanks everybody | 18:41 |
| SumitNaiksatam | but good start ;-) | 18:41 |
| s3wong | Thanks! | 18:41 |
| cgoncalves | SumitNaiksatam: sorry to disturb. regarding this meeting, would there be any interested in discussing the proposal I shared on the mailing list sometime here, or in another neutron meeting, or off IRC meeting? | 18:41 |
| Swami | SumitNaiksatam: Ok we can discuss next week. | 18:41 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cgoncalves: thanks for brining that up | 18:41 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cgoncalves: yes sure lets put it on the agenda for the next week | 18:42 |
| * banix is totally disturbed/distracted with the discussion on #openstack-neutron about firewalls, hybrid plugins, and vif_details…. | 18:42 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: no worries, that's a fire burning | 18:42 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok lets wrap for today | 18:42 |
| cgoncalves | SumitNaiksatam: ok. I was not sure whether we should bring it to the advanced service meeting or other neutron meeting | 18:42 |
| cgoncalves | SumitNaiksatam: thanks. | 18:42 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cgoncalves: your call | 18:43 |
| *** Swami has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:43 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | #endmeeting | 18:43 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings" | 18:43 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Wed Mar 26 18:43:06 2014 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 18:43 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_advanced_services/2014/networking_advanced_services.2014-03-26-17.32.html | 18:43 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_advanced_services/2014/networking_advanced_services.2014-03-26-17.32.txt | 18:43 |
| banix | Trying to find out if it affect our plugin; do you know? | 18:43 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_advanced_services/2014/networking_advanced_services.2014-03-26-17.32.log.html | 18:43 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cgoncalves: we have too much to discuss and not as much time | 18:43 |
| banix | Thanks again! | 18:43 |
| *** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:43 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | and it's difficult to discuss certain things on a low bandwidth text channel :-) | 18:43 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix, all: thanks for joining | 18:44 |
| SumitNaiksatam | bye | 18:44 |
| banix | starting a petition to ask SumitNaiksatam to use a shorter nick name! | 18:44 |
| cgoncalves | SumitNaiksatam: I understand. maybe start discussing on the email thread I started shoudl be easier for everyone. | 18:44 |
| SridarK | banix: copy paste :-) | 18:44 |
| Louis__ | +1 for email | 18:44 |
| *** s3wong has quit IRC | 18:44 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: my apologies, but thought auto complete should work, right? :-) | 18:44 |
| cgoncalves | banix: auto-complete (tab key) | 18:45 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK banix: tab complete | 18:45 |
| cgoncalves | +1 :-) | 18:45 |
| banix | it does but still i end up typing it most of the time; no apologies needed; just kidding | 18:45 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok lets gets started with FWaaS | 18:45 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #startmeeting Networking FWaaS | 18:45 |
| openstack | Meeting started Wed Mar 26 18:45:52 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is SumitNaiksatam. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 18:45 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 18:45 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: Networking FWaaS)" | 18:45 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'networking_fwaas' | 18:45 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK RajeshMohan: there? | 18:46 |
| SridarK | hi | 18:46 |
| RajeshMohan | SumitNaiksatam: Hi | 18:46 |
| SumitNaiksatam | RajeshMohan: apologies for the delay, but it would be nice to have you in the previous meeting as well | 18:46 |
| RajeshMohan | SumitNaiksatam: I am sorry. I had a clash | 18:47 |
| SumitNaiksatam | not sure if we have gary or yi today? | 18:47 |
| RajeshMohan | SumitNaiksatam: I am trying to reschedule the other one | 18:47 |
| SumitNaiksatam | RajeshMohan: ok great | 18:47 |
| SumitNaiksatam | RajeshMohan: lots of discussion on service context over there | 18:47 |
| *** mandeep has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:47 | |
| RajeshMohan | SumitNaiksatam: I will go over them | 18:47 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic Service Insertion and Firewall | 18:47 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Service Insertion and Firewall (Meeting topic: Networking FWaaS)" | 18:47 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/62599 | 18:48 |
| SumitNaiksatam | RajeshMohan: is the earlier issue raised by akihiro fixed? | 18:48 |
| SumitNaiksatam | RajeshMohan: we have not rebased since march 6th | 18:49 |
| RajeshMohan | SumitNaiksatam: No, I was waiitng for kevin's patch to merge. I see that it is merged now | 18:49 |
| SumitNaiksatam | RajeshMohan: the one on the UTs? | 18:49 |
| RajeshMohan | SumitNaiksatam: I can put back the 'router-in-use' | 18:49 |
| RajeshMohan | 'router-in-use" check should take care of one issue he raised | 18:49 |
| SridarK | So with this the router will not get deleted when fw-delete happens ? | 18:50 |
| SumitNaiksatam | RajeshMohan: ok, lets get it wrapped up and have akihiro agree to it | 18:50 |
| RajeshMohan | The other one was about router not gettng deleted | 18:50 |
| SumitNaiksatam | RajeshMohan: i think the latter should be fixed now, right? | 18:50 |
| RajeshMohan | SridarK: any updates on that - sorry I cannot find the link to your patch | 18:51 |
| *** nacim has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:51 | |
| SridarK | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/74290 | 18:51 |
| RajeshMohan | SumitNaiksatam: those two will take care of what looked like bugs | 18:51 |
| SridarK | one issue pending is Akihiro comments on using a ',' delimeter | 18:51 |
| SridarK | oops sorry | 18:52 |
| SridarK | u asked abt the bug | 18:52 |
| SridarK | yes that will take care of one of Akihiro's issues | 18:52 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok good | 18:52 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so RajeshMohan lets reach out akihiro once we have rebased and patched | 18:52 |
| SumitNaiksatam | this will of course not mereg | 18:52 |
| RajeshMohan | SumitNaiksatam: there was general issue on attributes.py file | 18:53 |
| SumitNaiksatam | but if we get his approval, it will be easier to proceed once Juno opens | 18:53 |
| SumitNaiksatam | RajeshMohan: what was that? | 18:53 |
| *** MaxV has quit IRC | 18:53 | |
| RajeshMohan | SumitNaiksatam: 1 sec | 18:54 |
| *** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:54 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | yeah | 18:54 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: how is the CLI patch looking | 18:54 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: are we set? | 18:54 |
| SridarK | one issue pending is Akihiro comments on using a ',' delimeter for the resource list | 18:54 |
| *** jamielennox is now known as jamielennox|away | 18:54 | |
| SridarK | i used a space delimiter to keep it consistent with FW rules list | 18:55 |
| SridarK | there is no religion there just trying to maintain some consistency | 18:55 |
| SridarK | wanted to get ur opinion and i can change it | 18:55 |
| RajeshMohan | SumitNaiksatam: I cannot find it - it was the discussion on defining 'routers', 'network' etc in common file | 18:56 |
| RajeshMohan | SumitNaiksatam: He was not sure if all types will make sense for all services | 18:56 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: ah ok, i think we can go with what Akihiro wants (comma separated) | 18:56 |
| SridarK | ok done | 18:57 |
| RajeshMohan | SumitNaiksatam: Not sure if we discussed that in Advanced Services meeting | 18:57 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: we can later, change the firewall rules to keep consistency | 18:57 |
| SumitNaiksatam | RajeshMohan: ok | 18:57 |
| SridarK | ok | 18:57 |
| SumitNaiksatam | RajeshMohan: i think i recall that comment in the review | 18:57 |
| SumitNaiksatam | RajeshMohan: lets leave it the way it is now | 18:57 |
| SumitNaiksatam | RajeshMohan: the reviewer can get back on this if its still an issue | 18:58 |
| RajeshMohan | SumitNaiksatam: Ok. I will address the comments and rebase once Sridar's patch merges | 18:58 |
| SumitNaiksatam | RajeshMohan: SridarK's patch? | 18:58 |
| RajeshMohan | SumitNaiksatam: yes - router not getting deleted fix | 18:58 |
| SridarK | RajeshMohan: that is merged | 18:59 |
| SumitNaiksatam | RajeshMohan: yeah | 18:59 |
| SumitNaiksatam | RajeshMohan: that happened on March 15th | 18:59 |
| RajeshMohan | SumitNaiksatam SridarK: Ok. Then I will rebase | 18:59 |
| SumitNaiksatam | RajeshMohan: ok thanks | 18:59 |
| SridarK | RajeshMohan: one other issue was when we try to delete these routers (which has no i/f) - Akihiro's issue | 18:59 |
| SridarK | or rather a follow on to Akihiro's issue | 19:00 |
| SridarK | i have an email out to u | 19:00 |
| *** johnthetubaguy has quit IRC | 19:00 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: i think i glossed over that | 19:00 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: can't seem to recollect the context | 19:00 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: when we delete - there was an issue on the db | 19:01 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: ok | 19:01 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: is the comment on RajeshMohan's patch? | 19:01 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: No details in email to u guys | 19:01 |
| RajeshMohan | SridarK: I also seem to be missing some context - To me 'Akihiro's issue' and 'router not deleted' are same | 19:01 |
| SridarK | I will resend the email | 19:02 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: ok great, sorry about that | 19:02 |
| SridarK | RajeshMohan: /opt/stack/neutron/neutron/db/service_context.py(266)_delete_resource_context() -> service_context_id=service_context_db.id).one() ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > /usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/sqlalchemy/orm/query.py(2193)one() -> "Multiple rows were found for one()") (Pdb) | 19:02 |
| *** MaxV has quit IRC | 19:03 | |
| SridarK | was the traceback | 19:03 |
| RajeshMohan | SridarK: ok - got that | 19:03 |
| SridarK | this copy paste comes out terribly :-) | 19:03 |
| SridarK | RajeshMohan: ok great | 19:03 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: but it did the trick :-) | 19:03 |
| RajeshMohan | SridarK: I need to fix that as well along with rebase | 19:03 |
| SridarK | RajeshMohan: ok | 19:04 |
| SumitNaiksatam | RajeshMohan: if possible we should have a UT to cover that case | 19:04 |
| RajeshMohan | SumitNaiksatam SridarK: Will have a patch out by end of this week | 19:04 |
| SumitNaiksatam | RajeshMohan: ok thanks | 19:05 |
| SridarK | ok cool i will also refactor the CLI to change as per Akihiro's comment for ',' | 19:05 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we should focus on getting this in before we take up other things | 19:05 |
| SumitNaiksatam | lets not lose our tempo on this | 19:05 |
| SridarK | so we should be good to go when Juno reopens | 19:05 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: yeah, thanks | 19:06 |
| *** Louis__ has quit IRC | 19:06 | |
| RajeshMohan | Sooner the better - I need to work on our plugin as well after that | 19:06 |
| SumitNaiksatam | RajeshMohan: ok cool | 19:06 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic | 19:06 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: Networking FWaaS)" | 19:06 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | #undo | 19:06 |
| openstack | Removing item from minutes: <ircmeeting.items.Topic object at 0x2969210> | 19:06 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic Zones | 19:07 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Zones (Meeting topic: Networking FWaaS)" | 19:07 | |
| SridarK | so this will be a primary target for Juno | 19:07 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: I think we need to discuss as a team | 19:08 |
| SridarK | yes | 19:08 |
| SumitNaiksatam | per our earlier discussion this was definitely a priority | 19:08 |
| SridarK | i think we had some points down | 19:08 |
| RajeshMohan | All firewalls have zones - though the definition of zones may differ a bit | 19:08 |
| *** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:08 | |
| SridarK | but will be good to cover it as a team | 19:08 |
| SumitNaiksatam | but still good to have a discussion | 19:08 |
| SumitNaiksatam | RajeshMohan: you wanted to discuss something beyond what we have currently defined? | 19:09 |
| RajeshMohan | SumitNaiksatam SridarK: We already discussed this in the HK summit | 19:09 |
| SridarK | RajeshMohan: yes i think some minor diferences | 19:09 |
| SridarK | across vendors | 19:09 |
| RajeshMohan | I propose that we start working on the patch - after we document the API | 19:09 |
| SridarK | but seems like nothing too controversial hopefully and we can have a model that works for all | 19:09 |
| SumitNaiksatam | RajeshMohan: definitely, if we can crystallize the resource model and the API, we can proceed on this | 19:10 |
| SridarK | perhaps we can start the discussions - i can start capturing into a doc | 19:10 |
| RajeshMohan | SridarK: let's document what we mean by zones and get folks to agree | 19:10 |
| SridarK | so we have something out there for all to comment | 19:10 |
| SridarK | RajeshMohan: we are on the same page :-) | 19:11 |
| RajeshMohan | zones - collection of neutron ports is what we were pushing in the lcehouse design summit | 19:11 |
| RajeshMohan | SridarK: ok great | 19:11 |
| SridarK | I see some similarities with our discussions on insertion context | 19:11 |
| SridarK | service context | 19:12 |
| *** OSM has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:12 | |
| RajeshMohan | SridarK: yes - we have to link the two at some stage - maybe at validation stage | 19:12 |
| SumitNaiksatam | yeah, one general comment (i think we discussed this earlier) is that not every construct of a service needs to be represented at the neutron level | 19:13 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i do agree that from a firewall perspective, zone is a fundamental construct | 19:13 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: yes i think we need to discuss more on that | 19:13 |
| SumitNaiksatam | however, i think we will need to convince the community that certain use cases cannot be satisfied if zones are not defined | 19:14 |
| *** wchrisj has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:14 | |
| RajeshMohan | All firewalls have zones - is that not good enough :-) | 19:14 |
| SumitNaiksatam | RajeshMohan: probably not | 19:15 |
| RajeshMohan | we need different policy for different pair of zones | 19:15 |
| SumitNaiksatam | RajeshMohan: all switches mostly support VLANs | 19:15 |
| SumitNaiksatam | RajeshMohan: but we don't expose them in the neutron abstraction | 19:15 |
| SumitNaiksatam | may not be the best analogy | 19:15 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: i think u are saying to justify this new construct of szone | 19:15 |
| SridarK | *zone | 19:16 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i am just playing the devil's advocate | 19:16 |
| SridarK | instead of just saying collection of ports | 19:16 |
| RajeshMohan | SumitNaiksatam: Ok - we will try to build a case for firewall zones | 19:16 |
| SumitNaiksatam | RajeshMohan: great | 19:16 |
| *** Louis__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:17 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic open discussion | 19:17 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open discussion (Meeting topic: Networking FWaaS)" | 19:17 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | anything else we need to discuss? | 19:17 |
| SridarK | Summit prep ? | 19:17 |
| SumitNaiksatam | yeah | 19:17 |
| SumitNaiksatam | thanks SridarK just typing | 19:17 |
| SridarK | we should discuss will all folks | 19:17 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i did post a summit session | 19:17 |
| SridarK | oh ok :-) | 19:17 |
| RajeshMohan | I want to propose an extension to firewall "Firewall DPI Configuration" | 19:18 |
| SumitNaiksatam | like last time | 19:18 |
| RajeshMohan | I can get a BP ready for that | 19:18 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #link http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/17 | 19:18 |
| SumitNaiksatam | RajeshMohan: great | 19:19 |
| SridarK | RajeshMohan: i attribute my baldness to debugging DPI issues on a NPU ;-) | 19:19 |
| RajeshMohan | We need a knob at Firewall level to say that "IPS is enabled", "Gateway AntiVirus is enabled" and few more DPI based firewall services | 19:19 |
| SridarK | so +1 on that | 19:19 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i think we need to get into a room (at least some of us) to converge on the priority of topics | 19:19 |
| SumitNaiksatam | anything more? | 19:20 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: yes that will be great | 19:20 |
| RajeshMohan | SumitNaiksatam: Sure. I am sure this will be priority for most firewall vendors | 19:20 |
| RajeshMohan | SumitNaiksatam SridarK: Just to confirm. What are next actions on Firewall zones? | 19:20 |
| SumitNaiksatam | yeah | 19:20 |
| RajeshMohan | SumitNaiksatam SridarK: Are we going to work on a patch based on last design summit? | 19:21 |
| SridarK | Lets start some discussion and capture into a doc | 19:21 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: +1 | 19:21 |
| RajeshMohan | SridarK: IMO, we already discussed this in last two summits. We can have a quick discussion this time | 19:22 |
| *** nacim has quit IRC | 19:22 | |
| SridarK | RajeshMohan: ok lets get some convergence amongst the sub team | 19:22 |
| SridarK | so there are no issues raised later on | 19:22 |
| RajeshMohan | SridarK SumitNaiksatam: Sorry for pushing on Firewall zones but this is important for DELL plugin | 19:23 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: yeah, i think we need to convince the rest of the community | 19:23 |
| RajeshMohan | I am ok with one more discussion but we have discussed this a lot already | 19:23 |
| SridarK | RajeshMohan: Agreed very important for us also and also for other participants | 19:24 |
| RajeshMohan | SumitNaiksatam SridarK: Ok. Let's start with documentation | 19:24 |
| SumitNaiksatam | RajeshMohan: there is also always an option of having vendor specific extensions | 19:24 |
| SumitNaiksatam | RajeshMohan: document sounds like a good idea | 19:24 |
| SumitNaiksatam | lets call it a wrap for today | 19:25 |
| SridarK | ok | 19:25 |
| SumitNaiksatam | unless there is something else | 19:25 |
| RajeshMohan | SumitNaiksatam SridarK: ok. Thanks | 19:25 |
| SridarK | nope | 19:25 |
| SridarK | thanks | 19:25 |
| *** pcm_ has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:25 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | thanks folks for joining | 19:25 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: RajeshMohan ttyl | 19:25 |
| SridarK | bye | 19:25 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #endmeeting | 19:25 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings" | 19:25 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Wed Mar 26 19:25:36 2014 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 19:25 |
| RajeshMohan | Bye | 19:25 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_fwaas/2014/networking_fwaas.2014-03-26-18.45.html | 19:25 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_fwaas/2014/networking_fwaas.2014-03-26-18.45.txt | 19:25 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_fwaas/2014/networking_fwaas.2014-03-26-18.45.log.html | 19:25 |
| SumitNaiksatam | bye | 19:25 |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC | 19:31 | |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:42 | |
| *** nacim has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:46 | |
| *** nacim has quit IRC | 19:52 | |
| *** Louis__ has quit IRC | 20:03 | |
| *** julim_ has quit IRC | 20:03 | |
| *** saju_m has quit IRC | 20:11 | |
| *** mrunge has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:27 | |
| *** saju_m has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:30 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 20:34 | |
| *** devlaps has quit IRC | 20:35 | |
| *** saju_m has quit IRC | 20:37 | |
| *** devlaps has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:41 | |
| *** julim has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:45 | |
| *** garyduan has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:59 | |
| *** mfer has quit IRC | 21:02 | |
| *** wchrisj has quit IRC | 21:11 | |
| *** prasadv has quit IRC | 21:17 | |
| *** lifeless has quit IRC | 21:19 | |
| *** gduan has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:32 | |
| *** garyduan has quit IRC | 21:33 | |
| *** jamielennox|away is now known as jamielennox | 21:35 | |
| *** jamielennox has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:36 | |
| *** lpetrut has quit IRC | 21:39 | |
| *** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:55 | |
| *** perister1 has quit IRC | 21:57 | |
| *** dhellmann is now known as dhellmann_ | 22:03 | |
| *** banix has quit IRC | 22:04 | |
| *** ttrifonov is now known as ttrifonov_zZzz | 22:16 | |
| *** mwagner_lap has quit IRC | 22:17 | |
| *** lblanchard has quit IRC | 22:27 | |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 22:27 | |
| *** gduan has quit IRC | 22:30 | |
| *** dhellmann_ is now known as dhellmann | 22:31 | |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:31 | |
| *** dhellmann is now known as dhellmann_ | 22:41 | |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 22:49 | |
| *** garyduan has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:57 | |
| *** mrunge has quit IRC | 23:02 | |
| *** julim has quit IRC | 23:05 | |
| *** jtomasek has quit IRC | 23:25 | |
| *** alexpilotti has quit IRC | 23:28 | |
| *** yamahata has quit IRC | 23:37 | |
| *** mwagner_lap has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:38 | |
| *** gduan has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:52 | |
| *** garyduan has quit IRC | 23:53 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!