Wednesday, 2014-08-13

*** carl_baldwin has joined #openstack-meeting-300:02
*** amotoki has joined #openstack-meeting-300:03
*** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting-300:06
*** amotoki has quit IRC00:09
*** david-lyle has quit IRC00:12
*** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-300:23
*** david-lyle has quit IRC00:24
*** carl_baldwin has quit IRC00:24
*** carl_baldwin has joined #openstack-meeting-300:24
*** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-300:25
*** SridharRamaswamy has joined #openstack-meeting-300:25
*** carl_baldwin has quit IRC00:26
*** david-lyle has quit IRC00:29
*** tomoe_ has quit IRC00:45
*** tomoe_ has joined #openstack-meeting-300:46
*** tomoe_ has quit IRC00:50
*** markmcclain has quit IRC00:50
*** seizadi1 has quit IRC01:09
*** banix has joined #openstack-meeting-301:10
*** yamahata has joined #openstack-meeting-301:10
*** otherwiseguy has joined #openstack-meeting-301:13
*** SridharRamaswamy has quit IRC01:15
*** cjellick has joined #openstack-meeting-301:15
*** SridharRamaswamy has joined #openstack-meeting-301:16
*** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC01:19
*** SridharRamaswamy has quit IRC01:20
*** cjellick has quit IRC01:31
*** eguz has joined #openstack-meeting-301:53
*** eguz has quit IRC01:53
*** eghobo has quit IRC01:57
*** amotoki has joined #openstack-meeting-302:04
*** salv-orlando has quit IRC02:06
*** Sukhdev has joined #openstack-meeting-302:07
*** amotoki has quit IRC02:09
*** clu_ has quit IRC02:19
*** vkmc has quit IRC02:46
*** seizadi has joined #openstack-meeting-302:53
*** armax has left #openstack-meeting-302:54
*** Sukhdev_ has joined #openstack-meeting-303:04
*** Sukhdev has quit IRC03:07
*** carl_baldwin has joined #openstack-meeting-303:08
*** Sukhdev_ has quit IRC03:08
*** pballand has quit IRC03:16
*** seizadi has quit IRC03:32
*** sankarshan_away is now known as sankarshan03:32
*** sankarshan is now known as sankarshan_away03:32
*** kashyap has quit IRC03:39
*** seizadi has joined #openstack-meeting-303:58
*** eghobo has joined #openstack-meeting-304:00
*** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting-304:06
*** flaviof is now known as flaviof_zzz04:08
*** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-304:31
*** eghobo has quit IRC04:37
*** eghobo has joined #openstack-meeting-304:40
*** Sukhdev has joined #openstack-meeting-304:51
*** eghobo has quit IRC04:52
*** carl_baldwin has quit IRC04:52
*** jgrimm has quit IRC05:01
*** SridharRamaswamy has joined #openstack-meeting-305:13
*** SridharRamaswamy has quit IRC05:15
*** cloudtoad has quit IRC05:15
*** SridharRamaswamy has joined #openstack-meeting-305:15
*** otherwiseguy has quit IRC05:23
*** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC05:28
*** tmazur has joined #openstack-meeting-305:28
*** k4n0 has joined #openstack-meeting-305:30
*** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting-305:36
*** dconde has joined #openstack-meeting-305:39
*** dconde has quit IRC05:43
*** yamamoto has quit IRC05:45
*** clu_ has joined #openstack-meeting-305:49
*** SridharRamaswamy has quit IRC05:50
*** SridharRamaswamy has joined #openstack-meeting-305:50
*** clu_ has quit IRC05:56
*** Sukhdev has quit IRC06:01
*** stanzgy has joined #openstack-meeting-306:02
*** Longgeek has joined #openstack-meeting-306:03
*** HenryG_ has joined #openstack-meeting-306:09
*** tmazur has quit IRC06:11
*** HenryG has quit IRC06:12
*** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-306:14
*** banix has quit IRC06:20
*** jcoufal has joined #openstack-meeting-306:40
*** yamamoto has quit IRC06:44
*** flaper87|afk is now known as flaper8706:44
*** SridharRamaswamy has quit IRC06:47
*** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-306:48
*** salv-orlando has joined #openstack-meeting-307:04
*** seizadi has quit IRC07:10
*** jamiehannaford has joined #openstack-meeting-307:27
*** david-lyle has quit IRC07:29
*** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-307:29
*** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-307:31
*** scheuran has joined #openstack-meeting-307:31
*** david-lyle has quit IRC07:34
*** yamamoto has quit IRC07:45
*** Longgeek has quit IRC07:46
*** Longgeek has joined #openstack-meeting-307:46
*** Youcef has joined #openstack-meeting-307:48
*** Longgeek has quit IRC07:51
*** Longgeek has joined #openstack-meeting-307:54
*** Youcef has quit IRC08:00
*** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-308:09
*** Longgeek has quit IRC08:10
*** tmazur has joined #openstack-meeting-308:20
*** MaxV has quit IRC08:30
*** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-308:30
*** MaxV has quit IRC08:35
*** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-308:45
*** Longgeek has joined #openstack-meeting-308:50
*** tmazur has quit IRC08:55
*** tmazur has joined #openstack-meeting-309:07
*** Longgeek has quit IRC09:15
*** yamamoto has quit IRC09:21
*** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-309:30
*** david-lyle has quit IRC09:35
*** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-309:38
*** david-lyle has quit IRC09:43
*** pkoniszewski has joined #openstack-meeting-309:44
*** Longgeek has joined #openstack-meeting-309:52
*** jeblair has quit IRC10:00
*** sankarshan_away has quit IRC10:02
*** MaxV has quit IRC10:06
*** jeblair has joined #openstack-meeting-310:07
*** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-310:07
*** MaxV has quit IRC10:12
*** jcoufal has quit IRC10:19
*** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-310:22
*** jeblair has quit IRC10:23
*** bradjone has joined #openstack-meeting-310:26
*** yamamoto has quit IRC10:27
*** jeblair has joined #openstack-meeting-310:30
*** flaviof_zzz is now known as flaviof10:35
*** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-310:37
*** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-310:39
*** Longgeek has quit IRC10:41
*** yamahata has quit IRC10:42
*** MaxV has quit IRC10:42
*** david-lyle has quit IRC10:43
*** stanzgy has quit IRC10:48
*** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-311:08
*** jcoufal has joined #openstack-meeting-311:09
*** MaxV has quit IRC11:10
*** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-311:10
*** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-311:22
*** Longgeek has joined #openstack-meeting-311:26
*** yamamoto has quit IRC11:26
*** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-311:40
*** sankarshan has joined #openstack-meeting-311:41
*** sankarshan is now known as sankarshan_away11:41
*** david-lyle has quit IRC11:44
*** vkmc has joined #openstack-meeting-311:47
*** jamielennox is now known as jamielennox|away12:02
*** salv-orlando has quit IRC12:02
*** boris-42 has quit IRC12:21
*** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-312:22
*** amotoki has joined #openstack-meeting-312:22
*** yamamoto has quit IRC12:27
*** cjellick has joined #openstack-meeting-312:32
*** boris-42 has joined #openstack-meeting-312:32
*** flaviof is now known as flaviof_zzz12:40
*** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-312:40
*** bradjone has quit IRC12:42
*** bradjone has joined #openstack-meeting-312:43
*** david-lyle has quit IRC12:45
*** julim has joined #openstack-meeting-312:50
*** julim has quit IRC12:52
*** salv-orlando has joined #openstack-meeting-312:53
*** julim has joined #openstack-meeting-312:53
*** scheuran has quit IRC12:54
*** mfer has joined #openstack-meeting-313:02
*** salv-orlando has quit IRC13:02
*** peristeri has joined #openstack-meeting-313:10
*** thomasem has joined #openstack-meeting-313:11
*** cbader has quit IRC13:16
*** flaviof_zzz is now known as flaviof13:16
*** lblanchard has joined #openstack-meeting-313:21
*** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-313:22
*** lblanchard has quit IRC13:22
*** banix has joined #openstack-meeting-313:23
*** lblanchard has joined #openstack-meeting-313:27
*** yamamoto has quit IRC13:27
*** haleyb has quit IRC13:36
*** banix has quit IRC13:41
*** armax has joined #openstack-meeting-313:44
*** banix has joined #openstack-meeting-313:55
*** igordcard has joined #openstack-meeting-313:58
*** haleyb has joined #openstack-meeting-314:01
*** salv-orlando has joined #openstack-meeting-314:12
*** thangp has joined #openstack-meeting-314:13
*** MaxV has quit IRC14:17
*** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-314:17
*** carl_baldwin has joined #openstack-meeting-314:18
*** seizadi has joined #openstack-meeting-314:19
*** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-314:22
*** yamamoto has quit IRC14:24
*** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-314:24
*** jlibosva has joined #openstack-meeting-314:25
*** yamamoto has quit IRC14:28
*** Longgeek has quit IRC14:29
*** carl_baldwin has quit IRC14:29
*** Longgeek has joined #openstack-meeting-314:30
*** julim has quit IRC14:36
*** julim has joined #openstack-meeting-314:37
*** Basil has joined #openstack-meeting-314:42
*** Basil is now known as Guest593014:42
*** Basil_Saito has quit IRC14:43
*** Guest5930 is now known as Basil_Saito14:43
*** thangp has quit IRC14:44
*** thangp has joined #openstack-meeting-314:44
*** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting-314:48
*** Basil_Saito has quit IRC14:51
*** markmcclain1 has joined #openstack-meeting-314:51
*** Basil_Saito has joined #openstack-meeting-314:51
*** flaper87 is now known as flaper87|afk14:54
*** pballand has joined #openstack-meeting-314:54
*** markmcclain has quit IRC14:55
*** otherwiseguy has joined #openstack-meeting-314:58
*** dconde has joined #openstack-meeting-314:59
*** jgrimm has joined #openstack-meeting-315:00
*** carl_baldwin has joined #openstack-meeting-315:01
*** MarkAtwood has joined #openstack-meeting-315:07
*** Sukhdev has joined #openstack-meeting-315:12
*** yamahata has joined #openstack-meeting-315:19
*** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-315:22
*** yamamoto has quit IRC15:27
*** seizadi has quit IRC15:27
*** samchoi has joined #openstack-meeting-315:27
*** dconde has quit IRC15:35
*** rhagarty has quit IRC15:36
*** dconde has joined #openstack-meeting-315:36
*** dconde has joined #openstack-meeting-315:37
*** dconde has quit IRC15:38
*** samchoi has quit IRC15:43
*** scheuran has joined #openstack-meeting-315:45
*** pkoniszewski has quit IRC15:55
*** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-315:55
*** rhagarty has joined #openstack-meeting-315:57
*** eghobo has joined #openstack-meeting-315:59
*** jlibosva has quit IRC16:01
*** k4n0 has quit IRC16:01
*** pballand has quit IRC16:01
*** tmazur has quit IRC16:05
*** pballand has joined #openstack-meeting-316:05
*** dconde has joined #openstack-meeting-316:10
*** MaxV has quit IRC16:11
*** jcoufal has quit IRC16:20
*** yamahata has quit IRC16:26
*** fungi has quit IRC16:26
*** tmazur has joined #openstack-meeting-316:26
*** tjones has joined #openstack-meeting-316:27
*** fungi has joined #openstack-meeting-316:27
*** mspreitz has joined #openstack-meeting-316:28
tjones#startmeeting novabugscrub16:34
openstackMeeting started Wed Aug 13 16:34:16 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is tjones. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.16:34
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.16:34
*** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: novabugscrub)"16:34
openstackThe meeting name has been set to 'novabugscrub'16:34
*** cbader has joined #openstack-meeting-316:37
*** jamiehannaford has quit IRC16:39
mspreitzWhat's the etiquette here?  I found a bug that I think is kind of important, and its importance is not marked in launchpad.16:40
*** alexsyip has joined #openstack-meeting-316:42
mspreitztjones: What's the etiquette here?  I found a bug that I think is kind of important, and its importance is not marked in launchpad.16:44
tjonessorry - was doing something else ;-)16:44
tjonescan you share the link - lets take a look?16:44
mspreitzhttps://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/132740616:44
mspreitzThe initial description is long and unclear, but I think I have a short sharp statement now16:45
mspreitzThe problem concerns Flat and FlatDHCP network managers in Nova networking16:45
mspreitzthe list-networks operation does not return any networks, if not done by an admin16:45
mspreitzthat is, if a non-admin user invokes it, the result is zero networks16:46
tjonesyes it's very long ;-)16:46
mspreitzAt first I was unsure of what to blame16:46
mspreitzNow I think it is clear16:46
tjoneslets mark it high them - sounds like something a customer could easily hit16:46
tjonesyour patch was abandoned though?16:46
mspreitzYes, in fact I was astonished the gate is not already hitting it16:46
*** emagana has joined #openstack-meeting-316:47
mspreitzI submitted two patches, the first abandoned, the second is in play16:47
tjonesok good16:47
mspreitzThers is also a patch adding a tempest test that exposes the bug16:47
tjonesi've set it to high prio16:47
mspreitzthanks16:47
tjonessure16:47
tjonesno complex etiquette here ;-)16:48
mspreitzgreat16:48
mspreitzWith a metric ton of bugs, there easily could be a lot of process...16:48
mspreitzthanks for the progress on this one16:49
*** Longgeek has quit IRC16:57
*** alexpilotti has joined #openstack-meeting-316:57
*** chuckC has quit IRC17:01
tjonessure17:02
tjones#endmeeting17:02
*** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings"17:02
openstackMeeting ended Wed Aug 13 17:02:13 2014 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)17:02
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/novabugscrub/2014/novabugscrub.2014-08-13-16.34.html17:02
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/novabugscrub/2014/novabugscrub.2014-08-13-16.34.txt17:02
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/novabugscrub/2014/novabugscrub.2014-08-13-16.34.log.html17:02
*** SridharRamaswamy has joined #openstack-meeting-317:06
*** scheuran has quit IRC17:07
*** MarkAtwood has quit IRC17:08
*** tmazur has quit IRC17:08
*** yamahata has joined #openstack-meeting-317:11
*** Sukhdev has quit IRC17:12
*** yamahata has quit IRC17:18
*** amotoki has quit IRC17:19
*** anil_rao has joined #openstack-meeting-317:22
*** ycombinator has joined #openstack-meeting-317:22
*** LouisF has joined #openstack-meeting-317:24
*** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-317:26
*** vinay_yadhav has joined #openstack-meeting-317:27
*** MaxV has quit IRC17:29
*** s3wong has joined #openstack-meeting-317:30
*** banix has quit IRC17:30
*** pcm_ has joined #openstack-meeting-317:30
SumitNaiksatamhi!17:31
s3wonghello17:31
marioso/17:31
vinay_yadhavHi!17:31
SumitNaiksatamlets get started17:31
* pcm_ lurking17:31
*** songole has joined #openstack-meeting-317:31
SumitNaiksatam#startmeeting Networking Advanced Services17:31
openstackMeeting started Wed Aug 13 17:31:32 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is SumitNaiksatam. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.17:31
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.17:31
*** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: Networking Advanced Services)"17:31
openstackThe meeting name has been set to 'networking_advanced_services'17:31
*** eguz has joined #openstack-meeting-317:31
dougwigo/17:31
songoleHello17:31
SumitNaiksatam#chairs s3wong vinay_yadhav marios pcm_ dougwig songole17:32
marioslol :)17:32
*** igordcard has quit IRC17:32
mariosgetting ready?17:32
SumitNaiksatamthere, just in case i disconnect ;-)17:32
*** hemanthravi has joined #openstack-meeting-317:32
SumitNaiksatamsorry for the fiasco last week with my connection17:32
SumitNaiksatami am still on the same connection though :-P17:32
SumitNaiksatamhopefully better this time17:32
SumitNaiksatamso like last time, lets first check if we can get the PTL to provide us some high level guidance on the priority and/or feasibility of making progress with the approved blueprints17:33
SumitNaiksatammestery: hi, there?17:33
*** yyywu has quit IRC17:34
s3wongaround 12:30 central time, imagine he is on lunch or something :-)17:35
*** eghobo has quit IRC17:35
SumitNaiksatams3wong: o17:35
SumitNaiksatamok17:35
SumitNaiksatamyeah perhaps he is not around17:36
SumitNaiksatamin that case lets stick to our regular agenda17:36
LouisFSumitNaiksatam: are any BPs going to be moved to Kilo?17:36
SumitNaiksatamLouisF: thats what i wanted to check with mestery17:36
SumitNaiksatamLouisF: not that i am aware of or has been publicly conveyed17:37
SumitNaiksatami guess in the absence of any such direction, we continue to on our path17:37
songoleSumitNaiksatam: how many days do we have before feature freeze?17:37
SumitNaiksatamsongole: any patched pertaining to new features have to be pushed to gerrit by aug 21st17:37
SumitNaiksatam*patches17:38
songoleok. got it.17:38
SumitNaiksatampatches will be reviewed and can be revised after that date until the end of J3 (which i believe is Sept 4th)17:38
mariosSumitNaiksatam: that means 'in review' and not 'merged' right? - right you just answered me17:38
*** tjones has left #openstack-meeting-317:38
SumitNaiksatammarios: right17:38
mariosi spot a loophole ;)17:39
SumitNaiksatamso if you have a blueprint that is approved and dont submit a patch for review by aug 21st, you are out of Juno17:39
SumitNaiksatammarios: go ahead17:39
mariosheh, no i meant 'in review' could mean anything. like a part of the blueprint17:39
SumitNaiksatammarios: yeah :-)17:39
SumitNaiksatammarios: but the thing is that if its partially implemented, the chances that the review for the complete implementation will finish by sept 4th are minimal17:40
SumitNaiksatamthere will be huge deluge of patches and hence review pressure for the two weeks following aug 21st17:40
mariosright17:41
SumitNaiksatamand if something does not get reviewed and merged by step 4th, then its likely to be out of J317:41
SumitNaiksatambarring exceptions17:41
*** thomasem_ has joined #openstack-meeting-317:41
SumitNaiksatamhowever bug fixes can continue to be submitted17:41
SumitNaiksatamhowever, even there the criteria will get stricter on the severity of bugs17:42
*** natarajk has joined #openstack-meeting-317:42
*** badveli has joined #openstack-meeting-317:42
SumitNaiksatamok any more questions on the timelines?17:42
*** thomasem has quit IRC17:43
SumitNaiksatam#topic Flavors17:43
*** openstack changes topic to "Flavors (Meeting topic: Networking Advanced Services)"17:43
SumitNaiksatamis enikanorov_ or markmcclain1 here?17:43
enikanorov_i'm here17:43
enikanorov_hi17:43
SumitNaiksatamenikanorov_: hi17:43
SumitNaiksatamenikanorov_: so our obligatory question, any progress on the blueprint? :-)17:44
enikanorov_no, unfortunately, other than fixing reviewers comments17:44
enikanorov_(I mean in impl patch)17:44
SumitNaiksatamenikanorov_: yeah, i was just going to ask that17:44
*** celttechie has joined #openstack-meeting-317:44
*** seizadi has joined #openstack-meeting-317:44
SumitNaiksatam#link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/10598217:45
*** marun has joined #openstack-meeting-317:45
markmcclain1SumitNaiksatam: sorry the policy mess has consumed all of my available cycles17:45
enikanorov_if markmcclain1 is willing to handover spec patch to me, i will gladly work on it17:45
SumitNaiksatammarkmcclain1: i saw that coming :-)17:45
markmcclain1hoping we get that resolved shortly17:46
SumitNaiksatamenikanorov_:  ok, i dont think i or anyone here is in a position to mediate17:46
SumitNaiksatammarkmcclain1: it seems enikanorov_ has cycles17:46
SumitNaiksatammarkmcclain1: in case you feel comfortable, he has a suggestion17:46
markmcclain1yeah need to revisit only because the last time we ventured too far down a path in wrong direction don't want to repeat17:48
SumitNaiksatamenikanorov_: any questions for enikanorov_ on the impl patch?17:48
SumitNaiksatamor for markmcclain1 on the spec patch17:48
enikanorov_markmcclain1: are you referring to providers now?17:49
enikanorov_(as 'wrong direction')17:49
enikanorov_I'm asking because i saw  lbaass subteam discussing still using provider attribute in the new API17:50
enikanorov_it's better if we could avoid that17:50
dougwigenikanorov_: that discussing was relevant to flavors as well.  it wasn't provider specific.  we can talk offline.17:51
dougwig /discussing/discussion/17:51
SumitNaiksatamok anything else on flavors?17:52
SumitNaiksatamenikanorov_: thanks17:53
enikanorov_u're welcome :)17:53
SumitNaiksatam#topic Service base and insertion17:53
*** openstack changes topic to "Service base and insertion (Meeting topic: Networking Advanced Services)"17:53
SumitNaiksatams3wong: kanzhe: there?17:53
s3wongJust a short update. WIP patch is up: https://review.openstack.org/11397517:53
SumitNaiksatams3wong: oh ince17:53
SumitNaiksatam*nice17:54
s3wongas it doesn't have DB migration script, it will fail a bunch of CIs and gate tests17:54
marioss3wong: great17:54
s3wongbut I will work on that soon(ish)17:54
*** chuckC has joined #openstack-meeting-317:54
marunHow on earth did this spec get approved?17:54
mariosfor the record, my wip is still at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/108049/ (vpn), but haven't worked on it this week17:54
SumitNaiksatams3wong: sorry for being pedantic on process, can you add the link to the wiki page: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/AdvancedServices/JunoPlan17:54
marunI think it needs further discussion.17:54
s3wongit is only API and DB for service interface; so the plugin and even service base work has NOT been done17:55
s3wongso a lot of work ahead, still17:55
SumitNaiksatammarios: yeah great, was going to check next?17:55
SumitNaiksatamnext? -> next17:55
*** Swami has joined #openstack-meeting-317:55
maruns3wong: So, why don't we defer to kilo since it's unlikely to be ready in the next 9 days?17:55
s3wongmarun: I will defer that decision to the rest of the team17:56
mariosSumitNaiksatam: so i actually wanted to bring this up - not sure if we need to defer, but I think we need some clarity (I was kinda hoping on comments to my wip that would perhaps help clarify things for me)17:57
marioserr sorry that wasn't meant just for sumit17:57
SumitNaiksatammarios: yes17:57
mariosso a couple days ago i tried to collect the threads. we've been tlaking about this in the last 3 meetings17:57
s3wongif marios , kanzhe, SridharRamaswamy, and SumitNaiksatam are all in agreement with that, I have no objection17:57
SumitNaiksatamso there are two aspects at play here17:57
mariosi looked back over the logs and i'd say at least we need to update the spec to clarify some things17:57
mariosSumitNaiksatam: sorry, go ahead17:58
SumitNaiksatamone is the direction that the project wants to take17:58
SumitNaiksatamhence wanted to check with the PTL right at the outset17:58
SumitNaiksatamwe tried to do that at the beginning of the last meeting as well17:58
SumitNaiksatamcurrently as it stands, the bp spec was approved for J317:58
SumitNaiksatamthe second aspect is about the confidence of the author17:59
SumitNaiksatamin finishing the patch17:59
SumitNaiksatami believe that the requirement in that the patch should be out of WIP by aug 21st17:59
mariosSumitNaiksatam: there's a third aspect i believe.17:59
SumitNaiksatammarios: sure, please go ahead18:00
mariosSumitNaiksatam: which is what i was trying to say above. the whole 'defer entry' with the messaging isn't described in the spec18:00
marios(as well as some minor details like the db migration aspecs, keeping certain fields that we said we'd nuke)18:00
SumitNaiksatammarios: ‘defer entry’?18:00
mariossec, i will copy/paste, apolgoies in advance:18:01
marios17:50:39 <s3wong> SumitNaiksatam: have we made a decision on how the serviceInterfacePlugin will get the service instance UUID yet?18:01
marios17:52:57 <SumitNaiksatam> s3wong: we can maintain a table in the new service insertion plugin, that will hold a reference to the uuids against their service type18:01
marios(from 2014-07-30-17.31.log.html)18:01
marunI'm having a hard time understanding why service insertion should be a part of Neutron.18:02
SumitNaiksatammarios: ah, i got a little confused by the ‘defer’ part18:02
mariosyeah, it started off being described that way in the meeting before that18:02
marunAll the discussion around NFV has made it clear that we don't want to focus on orchestration at that level.18:02
marunWe need to support it out-of-band, sure.18:02
marunBut doing it in-tree?18:02
marunThat was agreed on at summit as being a non-starter, at least for now.18:03
SumitNaiksatammarun: what was agreed at the summit as being non-starter?18:03
marunThe fact that none of the spec approvers were in the room at the summit session is pretty telling.18:03
marunAnd I think good grounds for revoking approval.18:03
SumitNaiksatammarun: which room?18:03
marunNeutron room, last session.18:03
marunSumitNaiksatam: or where you there?18:04
marunwhere -> were18:04
SumitNaiksatammarun: no i wasnt there, i had communitcated to the PTL that i had travel plans which could not be changed at the last minute18:04
dougwigi think everyone was on planes home for that meeting; i'm not sure that's indicative of anything.18:04
SumitNaiksatammarun: at least i was not aware of any decisions that were made during that meeting that were made public18:04
marunRegardless of why, I think the validity of the spec is nonetheless in question.18:05
SumitNaiksatammarun: was this conveyed to the mailing list or captured in any etherpad?18:05
marunSumitNaiksatam: Given that there has been continual rejection of the ideas conveyed in the spec in successive summits, I'm not sure why you would take spec approval as achievement of consensus around the issue.18:06
marunAnd I seriously doubt it comes as a surprise to you.18:06
SumitNaiksatammarun: reject of the idea? by who?18:06
marunSumitNaiksatam: And yes, it was captured in the summit etherpad.18:06
SumitNaiksatam*rejection18:06
marunSumitNaiksatam: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/servicevm18:07
hemanthravimarun, though i'm not a spec approver I was present in the last session and don't remember the decision reg service insertion. will take a look at the etherpad18:07
SumitNaiksatamwhy isnt the spec review process being followed if you are fundamentally in disagreement with the idea?18:07
marunSumitNaiksatam: I think you are confusing approval of a spec with consensus.18:07
SumitNaiksatammarun: i am not talking about approval or consensus18:08
emaganaSumitNaiksatam: I think this time the spec process was not mature for Neutron and we are realizing that. Hopefully, next cycle will be better.18:08
SumitNaiksatammarun: i am just saying, if you had concerns, why werent they expressed on the blueprint spec during the review process18:08
SumitNaiksatammarun: the etherpad you point to is about Service VMs18:09
SumitNaiksatammarun: there was an entire design summit session which was on the topics that we are discussing in this meeting18:09
marunSumitNaiksatam: I'm not sure about you, but there are more specs than anyone can cover.18:09
SumitNaiksatammarun: we are not discussing service VM related insertion in this meeting18:09
marunSumitNaiksatam: insertion is the same issue in both casese18:09
SumitNaiksatammarun: hence we have sub teams to scale the problem18:10
SumitNaiksatamor rather solution to the problem18:10
SumitNaiksatammarun: not quite18:10
marunSumitNaiksatam: The discussion there made it clear that while we need to support the capability to allow unfiltered or trunked ports, that we did not want to be deciding how that plugging took place within neutron.18:10
SumitNaiksatammarun: can you explain why its the same in both cases?18:10
marunSumitNaiksatam: The subteams are still responsible to the community as whole.18:10
SumitNaiksatammarun: of course18:11
marunSumitNaiksatam: There is no good excuse for implementing the wrong things.18:11
SumitNaiksatammarun: we are not discussing anything related to trunking in this spec18:11
marunSumitNaiksatam: If we figure out later in the cycle, it sucks.  Ideally we would figure it out as soon as possible.18:11
marunSumitNaiksatam: I gave those only as examples of things needed to support the service vm use-cases.18:11
mariosmarun: apologies if this is a silly question, but have you read the spec in question? it is quite simple in scope, just trying to introduce a single 'context' that captures where a service 'exists' (e.g. the router a vpn service is associated with) in a centralised manner18:11
SumitNaiksatammarun: yes, and hence it was proposed in the design summit session and discussed during the design summit18:12
marunSumitNaiksatam: But the issue at hand - whether we need to support service insertion in neutron - is the same.18:12
SumitNaiksatammarun: please see marios’ comment, i think you are misunderstanding the spec18:12
marunSumitNaiksatam: It should be done outside of the tree to prove its worth before we waste time experimenting in the tree.18:12
SumitNaiksatammarun: the team has already iterated once on this idea during the icehouse cycle18:13
SumitNaiksatammarun: this is enhancement of that idea18:13
mariosmarun: it _was_ more complex before but was simplified quite a bit in order to land18:13
SumitNaiksatammarun: and in my opinion not a new idea that is in early stage of experimentation18:14
*** thomasem_ has quit IRC18:14
SumitNaiksatammarun: i am still unable to find any where in the etherpad where this bp spec or the service insertion problem that is being attempted to be solved here is being referenced18:15
hemanthraviand serves to provide a common framework for insertion being impl independently by services such as fwaas, vpnaas18:15
SumitNaiksatammarun: besides, this is one blueprint of a big framework18:15
SumitNaiksatammarun: a separate blueprint was registered for defining that framework18:16
SumitNaiksatammarun: that was approved by the PTL as welll among other reviewers18:16
marunSumitNaiksatam: I like how you always seem to fall back on procedural arguments.18:16
marunSumitNaiksatam: Rather than technical ones.18:16
SumitNaiksatammarun: this team hasnt gotten any direction that any of that is invalid or misguided effort until your opinion here18:17
SumitNaiksatammarun: what is the technical issue?18:17
marunSumitNaiksatam: If we are going to go that route, I would point out that all approvers of the spec in question work for the same company.18:17
SumitNaiksatammarun: which spec?18:17
marunSumitNaiksatam: Which doesn't imply to me that we are getting the core oversight that we would expect.18:17
SumitNaiksatammarun: i am talking about the umbrella spec18:18
SumitNaiksatam#link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/9220018:18
SumitNaiksatamthis blueprint was added per feedback from the PTL18:18
SumitNaiksatamthat the whole community needs to be aware of the general direction we are taking here18:18
SumitNaiksatamthis was also in response to the issues raised in the LBaaS discussion18:19
marunSumitNaiksatam: this spec: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/93128/2218:19
SumitNaiksatamthat the necessary clean interfaces do not exist on the neutron side to achive integration of services18:19
* markmcclain1 reads scrollback18:19
emaganaemagana: uff!18:20
SumitNaiksatams3wong: so what is your comfort level with getting this patch out of WIP?18:20
SumitNaiksatams3wong: and is Kanzhe back from vacation now?18:20
markmcclain1Ok… so we're 9days out18:21
s3wongSumitNaiksatam: I will be working on this and GBP driver full time over this and next week18:21
markmcclain1the majority of the neutron core team has been focused on scaling, stability, and parity18:21
s3wongSumitNaiksatam: I see Kanzhe online (via Google chat), but haven't heard from him yet18:21
markmcclain1and it seems that we're unlikely to get this delivered for Juno18:22
SumitNaiksatammarkmcclain1: i would like to see a direction from the PTL on this18:22
markmcclain1also I'm not sure that the LBaaS team is even aware that this deprecates part of their API18:22
hemanthravimarkmcclain1, could we make that decision 8/21 based on the readiness of the patch18:23
SumitNaiksatamhowever it seems unfair to make this judgement even before we reach the FFP deadline18:23
marunSumitNaiksatam: I think your attempts to appeal to a higher power are in vain.18:23
SumitNaiksatammarun: i am not trying to appeal to anyone18:23
marunSumitNaiksatam: We still don't have parity with Nova.18:23
markmcclain1SumitNaiksatam: why do we have to have mestery weigh in on everything?  the feature is still in WIP and no of the discussion here seems to indicate that it will leave that status w/o heroic effort before Tuesday18:24
*** krotscheck has quit IRC18:24
SumitNaiksatammarkmcclain1: hence checking with the author of the patch himself18:24
SumitNaiksatammarkmcclain1: if he/they dont feel confident, then there is nothing to be argued or for against18:25
s3wongSumitNaiksatam: markmcclain1: so I am still committed to get it ready before next Thursday18:25
SumitNaiksatammarkmcclain1: it is always the case more work gets done closer to the milestone18:25
*** krotscheck has joined #openstack-meeting-318:25
SumitNaiksatamthat said i dont have any interest in wasting anyone’s time here18:25
markmcclain1I totally understand that work gets done close to deadline18:25
SumitNaiksatamhence we sought clarification last week as well, whether this is going to get blocked by a -2 down the line18:26
markmcclain1but posting something that deprecates another team's api so close to milestone-3 is asking for trouble18:26
s3wongbut if the cores consensus is this won't land anyway, please let us know now18:26
SumitNaiksatamif that plan is already in place, then its not work pursuing this effort18:26
*** beagles has quit IRC18:26
SumitNaiksatammarkmcclain1: i am not sure i understand the part of about deprecate another team’s api18:26
SumitNaiksatammarkmcclain1: this is certainly new information to me or the team here18:27
SumitNaiksatammarkmcclain1: which team’s API does this deprecate?18:27
markmcclain1https://review.openstack.org/#/c/93128/2218:27
*** otherwiseguy has quit IRC18:27
markmcclain1line 31818:28
markmcclain1also the lbaas team has been iterating all summer on new drivers that take none of thing into account18:28
SumitNaiksatammarkmcclain1: ok18:28
*** SridarK has joined #openstack-meeting-318:29
*** thomasem has joined #openstack-meeting-318:29
markmcclain1there is clearly duplicative and confusing work occurring because of the two silos18:29
SumitNaiksatammarkmcclain1: my understanding was that the lbaas team is represented here, and also this team is represented on the lbaas side18:29
SumitNaiksatami believe dougwig is part of the lbaas representation here18:29
SumitNaiksatamand s3wong was part of the representation of this team on the lbaas side18:29
mariosmarkmcclain1: SumitNaiksatam: to markmcclain1's point, the changes for the services aren't actually going to happen (I mean for ex we already agreed that for vpn, we won't be nuking the router attribute as was stated in the spec)18:29
SumitNaiksatami dont think any issues have been brought up in this forum about this deprecation statement18:30
dougwigsorry, i only attend sporadically, and have really only been paying attention to flavors.  i can add some time, but i'm not currently up to speed.18:30
markmcclain1obviously cramming this in a the last moment is a bad idea18:30
s3wongSumitNaiksatam: markmcclain1: right, and I did go to the LBaaS mid-cycle and had discussions with blogan and susanne on this18:30
markmcclain1I don't want folks expending superhuman effort for something we have reconciled ahead of time18:31
markmcclain1s/have/have not/18:31
SumitNaiksatammarkmcclain1: again, if you have already decided to -2 this, then there is not point in pursuing further, however please do not mischaracterize this as being crammed at the last minute18:31
SumitNaiksatamnot -> no18:31
markmcclain1s3wong: to my knowledge none of the planned v2 specs reference this18:31
markmcclain1SumitNaiksatam: I haven't decided to -2 this because the code is WIP18:31
markmcclain1which is why I'm asking the hard question of whether we can resolve these issues in time18:32
SumitNaiksatammarkmcclain1: but i think we do get the hint here18:32
s3wongmarkmcclain1: correct, due to their code being ready by J-2 (earlier schedule) while ours is at J-318:32
markmcclain1I'd hate for devs to kill themselves implementing for use in the review period to realize we have a bunch of ill fitting parts18:32
dougwigmarkmcclain1, s3wong: correct, v2 hasn't taken this into account yet.  i think we likely did talk about it, but it didn't make it to any code.18:32
SumitNaiksatamdougwig: markmcclain1 its also a chicken and egg problem18:33
markmcclain1we went down this road before with provider networks and l3 routers18:33
s3wongdougwig: correct18:33
markmcclain1delivering two incompatible features took 2+ cycles to clean up18:33
SumitNaiksatamok just a time check, we have run out of time for this meeting18:34
*** banix has joined #openstack-meeting-318:34
SumitNaiksatamcan we take an action item to check between s3wong dougwig markmcclain1 if this breaks anything on lbaas?18:34
emaganaI would love to see devs helping on the priority staff.. nova parity, migration, even docs!18:34
SumitNaiksatamand decide whether to proceed or not?18:34
dougwigSumitNaiksatam: yes, i'd be happy to discuss with s3wong (or anyone else) offline.18:35
*** natarajk1 has joined #openstack-meeting-318:35
s3wongSumitNaiksatam: sure18:35
s3wongdougwig: great18:35
*** hemanth_ has joined #openstack-meeting-318:35
SumitNaiksatammarkmcclain1: sound okay18:35
SumitNaiksatam?18:35
emaganaPlease, use the neutron channel for those "offline" discussions18:35
*** pcm__ has joined #openstack-meeting-318:35
dougwigi'd prefer to use #openstack-lbaas, as it's less noisy.18:35
dougwigand also logged.18:35
SumitNaiksatam#topic Open Discussion18:36
*** openstack changes topic to "Open Discussion (Meeting topic: Networking Advanced Services)"18:36
SumitNaiksatamsorry we could not bring up any of the other agenda items18:36
markmcclain1yeah just really want to make sure we're all on same page and wasting resources18:36
emaganadougwig: I have so many channels open that I can't keep up18:36
SumitNaiksatammarkmcclain1: absolutely18:36
markmcclain1*not wasting resources*18:36
*** julim_ has joined #openstack-meeting-318:36
SumitNaiksatamany parting thoughts anyone?18:36
*** anil_rao has left #openstack-meeting-318:36
dougwigs3wong: do you have time in about an hour?18:37
SumitNaiksatamthanks all for joining18:37
SumitNaiksatam#endmeeting18:37
*** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings"18:37
openstackMeeting ended Wed Aug 13 18:37:19 2014 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)18:37
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_advanced_services/2014/networking_advanced_services.2014-08-13-17.31.html18:37
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_advanced_services/2014/networking_advanced_services.2014-08-13-17.31.txt18:37
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_advanced_services/2014/networking_advanced_services.2014-08-13-17.31.log.html18:37
s3wongdougwig: you are Pacific time, right, how about around 2pm?18:37
*** vinay_yadhav has quit IRC18:37
*** songole has left #openstack-meeting-318:37
mariosnight all18:37
dougwigi'm mountain, but 3pm mountain/2pm pacific works.18:37
s3wongdougwig: perfect18:38
hemanth_fwiw, i think a common framework for service insertion is much needed and most networks will have services deployed18:38
s3wongdougwig: #openstack-lbaas or #openstack-neutron?18:38
dougwigeither is fine.  you'll get more lbaas input on the lbaas channel.  most of them don't monitor neutron.18:38
s3wongdougwig: OK, let's do it on #openstack-lbaas then18:38
s3wongdougwig: talk to you soon18:38
SumitNaiksatamSridarK: gduan badveli natarajk: there?18:39
SridarKhemanth_: +1 - we should not think of this as a feature but rather as base infra to get services on18:39
s3wonghemanth_: if you want to, you can join there too18:39
SridarKHi18:39
badvelihello all18:39
natarajk1hi18:39
SumitNaiksatamok lets get started18:39
dougwigs3wong: ttyl.18:39
hemanth_s3wong, when is this lost my connection for a bit18:39
dougwig2pm pacific, #openstack-lbaas18:40
SumitNaiksatam#startmeeting Networking FWaaS18:40
openstackMeeting started Wed Aug 13 18:40:15 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is SumitNaiksatam. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.18:40
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.18:40
s3wonghemanth_: well, we can talk to the lbaas folks at 2pm if you are available18:40
*** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: Networking FWaaS)"18:40
openstackThe meeting name has been set to 'networking_fwaas'18:40
SumitNaiksatam#topic Action item review18:40
*** openstack changes topic to "Action item review (Meeting topic: Networking FWaaS)"18:40
hemanth_s3wong, will join that18:40
s3wonghemanth_: great, ttyl18:40
SumitNaiksatami think webex meeting with DVR team is done, SridarK thanks for following up18:41
*** hemanthravi has quit IRC18:41
*** dconde has quit IRC18:41
*** julim has quit IRC18:41
*** natarajk has quit IRC18:41
*** pcm_ has quit IRC18:41
SridarKyes SumitNaiksatam - good mtg18:41
*** LouisF has quit IRC18:41
SumitNaiksatamis the wiki page for FWaaS support for DVR up?18:41
SridarKwe can cover discussion on that topic18:41
badveliSumit swami mentioned about the migration path18:41
badvelisridar and myself are looking at18:42
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: no sorry not yet too many balls in the air - we will get this done soon18:42
SumitNaiksatamSridarK: ok18:42
badvelialso we get info on simulating evrryting in a single node18:42
SumitNaiksatambadveli: hang on18:42
SumitNaiksatam#action SridarK badveli to populate wiki page for FWaaS DVR support18:42
badvelisumit: we will do18:43
SumitNaiksatambadveli: thanks18:43
SumitNaiksatamwe also had action item for posting patch, SridarK did that, thanks!18:44
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: yes done np18:44
SumitNaiksatamSridarK: can you update https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/FWaaS/JunoPlan18:45
SumitNaiksatamwith link to patch?18:45
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: will do so right away18:45
badveliSumit: we will refine it based on our discussion with dvr team18:45
SumitNaiksatamSridarK: thanks, i was trying to past the link to the patch here :-)18:45
Swamihi18:46
SumitNaiksatam#link https://review.openstack.org/11335918:46
SridarK#link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113359/18:46
SumitNaiksatamSwami: hi18:46
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: :-)18:46
SumitNaiksatamok i think we are done with the action item review18:46
SumitNaiksatamsince Swami is here, lets jump to the DVR topic, and then we can circle back to the bugs18:47
SumitNaiksatam#topic FWaaS support for DVR18:47
*** openstack changes topic to "FWaaS support for DVR (Meeting topic: Networking FWaaS)"18:47
SumitNaiksatam#link https://review.openstack.org/11335918:47
*** alexsyip has quit IRC18:47
SumitNaiksatamSridarK: you want to summarize from yesterday’s meeting with DVR team?18:47
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: sure18:48
SridarKwe discussed overall approach18:48
*** s3wong has quit IRC18:48
SridarKstep1: get the network node done - currently in first patch18:48
SridarKcomments to change the demux based on the distributed flag in router info18:49
SumitNaiksatamSridarK: this is for the SNAT traffic?18:49
SridarKstep 2 on Compute node changes to make sure we do not break E - W traffic18:49
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: yes N - S traffic thru the snat NS18:50
SumitNaiksatamSridarK: which step covers the floating IP?18:50
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: we are targeting fixed ip now as in our current model18:50
SridarKonce we have that figured we can see if we can attack floating ip as well18:51
SumitNaiksatamSridarK: ok18:51
SwamiSumitNaiksatam: The North-South has two parts, one for the VM traffic that goes through the SNAT namespace and the other FIPs assigned VM traffic that goes through the FIP namespace.18:51
SumitNaiksatamSwami: ok thanks18:52
SwamiSo I think SridharK is working on the first item right now.18:52
SumitNaiksatamSwami: but the FIP translation happens on the compute node, right?18:52
SridarKSwami: yes18:52
SwamiSumitNaiksatam: Yes in the IR of the compute node.18:52
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: Swami that we target in the step 218:52
SumitNaiksatamSwami: SridarK so we will attempt that as step 2 or 3?18:53
SumitNaiksatamSridarK: yeah my question18:53
SridarKi think we will get fixed ip working first18:53
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: i think we can apply rules in a way so we either get post or pre NAT18:54
*** krotscheck has quit IRC18:54
SridarKone suggestion was to bind that to the rfp- i/f which is the path to the FIP NS18:54
*** krotscheck has joined #openstack-meeting-318:55
*** dconde has joined #openstack-meeting-318:55
*** eguz has quit IRC18:56
SridarKOur immediate action is to use Swami 's suggestion of getting a single node install (which simulates the compute node as well) - to play with the IR and FIP NS interactions18:56
SridarKonce we have a handle on that we can make a call on the Floating IP18:56
SumitNaiksatamSridarK: that sounds good18:56
SridarKover all good mtg and thanks to the DVR folks for being really supportive and helpful18:57
SumitNaiksatamSwami: SridarK badveli are we on the same page on this?18:57
badveliyes18:57
SumitNaiksataml also wanted to check with armax since he was included on the thread by mestery18:58
SwamiSumitNaiksatam: We are on the same page.18:58
SumitNaiksatamSwami: thanks for the help18:58
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: +1 on that18:58
armaxSumitNaiksatam: sorry folks I wasn’t paying attention18:59
SumitNaiksatamarmax: please let us know if you are in agreement with the approach that is being taken here18:59
armaxSumitNaiksatam: what can I do for you?18:59
SumitNaiksatamarmax: yeah sure18:59
SumitNaiksatamarmax: :-)18:59
SumitNaiksatamarmax: just wanted to make sure you are in the loop as well18:59
SumitNaiksatamarmax: mestery included you on the thread regarding the FWaaS support for DVR18:59
armaxSumitNaiksatam: oh right19:00
SumitNaiksatamand the FWaaS team has been in discussion with the DVR team on this19:00
SumitNaiksatamwe had a call yesterday19:00
armaxSumitNaiksatam: I am on the review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113359/19:00
SumitNaiksatamto sync up on the progress so far and the path forward19:00
SumitNaiksatamarmax: yes, great19:00
armaxSumitNaiksatam: is it good to review/play with19:00
armax?19:00
SumitNaiksatamSridarK: ^^^19:00
SridarKarmax: not yet still WIP19:01
SumitNaiksatamarmax: i believe not right away19:01
armaxSumitNaiksatam: we’re definitely looking at fwaas19:01
armaxSumitNaiksatam: in the dvr case there are tempest failures that I haven’t looked at19:01
armaxSumitNaiksatam: but I was hoping that SridarK’s changes might help address them19:01
SridarKarmax: we had a mtg set up earlier - pls let me know in case i should include u in any offline calls that we may have19:01
armaxSridarK, SumitNaiksatam: posting ‘check experimental’ on the above mentioned patch should give you a clue on the effects of your patch on DVR19:02
armaxSridarK: that should get some pressure off from manual testing19:02
*** eghobo has joined #openstack-meeting-319:02
armaxSridarK: feel free to keep me in the loop, I cannot guarantee I’ll be able to respond promptly…I am drowning over here :)19:02
SridarKarmax: u were really quick to add that thanks even b4 i could mark it WIP  :-)19:02
SridarKarmax: understood will do19:02
armaxSridarK: momentary lapse of a reason ;)19:03
SridarKarmax: u give away ur age referring to some Pink Floyd y stuff :-)19:03
armaxSridarK: are you saying that I am old?19:03
armax:)19:03
SridarK:-)19:03
armaxI guess you must be too ;)19:04
SridarKarmax:  my hairline gives that away19:04
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: sorry back to mtg19:04
SumitNaiksatamok great, lets move on wise old men! :-P19:04
armaxSridarK: don’t even get me started on hairline, I am not coping well with my hair loss, but yes back to business19:04
SumitNaiksatambadveli: how is the set up coming along?19:05
badvelii am trying to follow sami suggestions19:05
badvelisorry swami suggestions19:05
SumitNaiksatambadveli: ok19:05
badvelisimulating in a single node19:05
SumitNaiksatambadveli: sorry i cut you off earlier19:05
badvelino problem19:05
SumitNaiksatambadveli: if you dont mind, can you please provide that update again?19:06
badvelithere is another thing that swami had braught up yesterday19:06
badvelithe migration19:06
SumitNaiksatambadveli: ok19:06
badveliif user converts a router to dvr on the fly19:07
SumitNaiksatamso migration of an existing fwaas installation to one with DVR?19:07
badveliyes19:07
SumitNaiksatambadveli: ok19:07
badveliwe need some mechanism to listen to19:07
badvelicurrently we listen only to router add19:07
SumitNaiksatambadveli: listen to what?19:08
badveliwe do not act on the router updates19:08
badveliwe do not have a way to know it19:08
SumitNaiksatambadveli: yes19:08
SumitNaiksatamhowever, we have not explicitly stated that we will support migration in our spec19:08
badveliwe need a mechanism first to know about this19:08
*** mspreitz has quit IRC19:09
SwamiSumitNaiksatam: Yes you have not stated in your spec.19:09
SwamiThe dvr team has a backlog item that we are working on for the router migration.19:09
badveliwhat is the implication now19:09
SumitNaiksatamSwami: ok19:09
SumitNaiksatamSwami: is taht something that is being targeted for J3?19:09
SwamiI was wondering if you have any communication mechanism that can be utilized to clean up the rules during the migration.19:09
SwamiYes the migration patch is currently targeted for Juno 319:10
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: but if the dvr team needs a clean way for migration - and if fwaas is installed - we need to have consistent way of handling this19:10
*** seizadi has quit IRC19:10
SridarKSwami: with an rpc for that - we can handle that19:10
SumitNaiksatamSwami: the agent listens to the rpc channel19:10
SumitNaiksatamSridarK: yes, like you said19:11
SwamiSumitNaiksatam: Yes I agree that the rpc channel would be right approach. My question is who owns that rpc? I=19:11
SumitNaiksatamSwami: i think SridarK and badveli indicating that we need to listen to the migrate event19:12
SridarKSwami: can it be a plugin to L3Agent RPC that we can add hooks into19:12
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: yes19:12
SwamiToday migrate is a regular "update".19:12
SumitNaiksatamSwami: ok, so the concern is taht fwaas would need to listen to all updates?19:13
SwamiSo if you can add a hook into the "router_update" rpc then it should work.19:13
SumitNaiksatamSwami: yeah19:13
SumitNaiksatamwe are already in the same footprint of the l3 agent19:13
*** emagana has quit IRC19:13
badvelilet me check that code19:14
SwamiRight now we have a state flag defined for router update as "migration".19:14
SridarKSwami: that should work19:14
SumitNaiksatamSwami: do you have the information published somewhere?19:14
SwamiBut we need to decide if we are going to send it to the agent as such or modify it before sending it to the agent.19:14
*** emagana has joined #openstack-meeting-319:14
SumitNaiksatamSwami: ah just asking that19:14
SwamiWe have a current patch for it upstream.19:14
Swami#link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105855/19:15
badvelithanks swami19:15
SwamiThere are couple of router states that we have defined in the "neutron/common/constants.py"19:15
SwamiFor now think about this idea and let me know.19:16
badveliwe will go through it19:17
SumitNaiksatamSridarK badveli: can we document our approach in the wiki?19:17
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: sure19:17
*** yamamoto has quit IRC19:17
badveliyes19:17
SumitNaiksatamonce we decide what to do, and perhaps get it reviewed19:17
SumitNaiksatamby the DVR team19:17
badvelifine sumit, we will think about this based on the new info by swami19:18
*** emagana has quit IRC19:18
badvelisumit:should we traget juno319:19
badveli?19:19
SumitNaiksatambadveli: you mean for the migration?19:19
badveliyes sumit19:19
badveliif we allow the migration, we will not be correct19:20
SumitNaiksatambadveli: i think we should target J319:20
SumitNaiksatambut my understanding is that we have a dependency on the DVR team19:21
SumitNaiksatamSwami: what is VPNaaS doing about this?19:21
SwamiSumitNaiksatam: nice question, the current proposal for VPNaaS is to check during update, if the router has an associated VPN service. If so , we will raise an exception and say DVR does not support VPNaaS19:22
SwamiWe are also planning to add a check in the VPNaaS service before associating a DVR router.19:23
SumitNaiksatamSwami: should we do the same with FWaaS?19:23
SwamiIs there a valid check for FWaaS with respect to a router.19:24
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: this was the issue for us19:24
SumitNaiksatamSwami: not with respect to a particular router19:24
SwamiIf we have a valid check we can do the same way.19:24
SwamiThat was my concern and that is the reason I brought it up to you folks.19:24
SumitNaiksatamSwami: the check will be if FWaaS is present for this tenant19:24
SumitNaiksatamSwami: sorry19:24
SumitNaiksatamSwami: i meant if a firewall is present for this router19:25
SwamiYes we can do that simple check.19:25
SumitNaiksatamSwami: since the firewall is applied on all routers19:26
SwamiAnd probably advice the admin to remove the FWaaS affinity towards the router and then migrate the router.19:26
badveliyes19:26
SumitNaiksatamSwami: badveli do you see an issue with that?19:26
SumitNaiksatamSwami: it wont be just for that router19:26
SridarKSwami: is there a case where u can have different router types in a single tenant19:26
SumitNaiksatamSwami: the admin will have to remove the firewall19:26
badvelisumit: I think it should be fine19:26
SwamiIt is not tenant driven it is admin driven19:27
SridarKSwami: and if we do a migration for a specific router that is in legacy to distr19:27
SwamiSo an admin for force a router to be "legacy" or "distributed" and can have a mix.19:27
SumitNaiksatamSwami: the firewall is owned by the tenant19:27
*** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-319:27
SumitNaiksatamSwami: let me back track a little19:28
SwamiSo if firewall is configured for that tenant, an admin should not move the router, until the tenant removes the FWaaS, that is one way19:28
SridarKSwami: SumitNaiksatam that mixed condition probab needs mor thought19:28
SumitNaiksatamSwami: you said - the current proposal for VPNaaS is to check during update, if the router has an associated VPN service. If so , we will raise an exception and say DVR does not support VPNaaS19:28
SwamiSumitNaiksatam: yes you are right. The reason is we don't have a VPNaaS solution for DVR yet.19:29
SumitNaiksatamSwami: did you mean to say - we will raise an exception and say *migraton to DVR* is not supported for VPNaaS?19:29
SumitNaiksatamSwami: ah ok, so VPNaaS itself is not supported19:29
SwamiOur expection message will state the router is in use by VPNaaS.19:29
SumitNaiksatamSwami: ok19:30
SumitNaiksatamSwami: similarly can you raise the exception that the router is in use by FWaaS?19:30
SumitNaiksatamSwami: the tenant which owns the firewall (it may or may not be admin) can then remove the firewall in response to this exception19:30
badvelisumit, i think we need to think more on this, as swami pointed out19:31
*** celttechie has quit IRC19:31
SwamiYes it can be done, the only issue I had was there was no direct corrilation between a router and a firewall.19:31
SumitNaiksatamSridarK: am i missing something? what is the mixed case?19:31
*** armax has quit IRC19:31
SumitNaiksatamSwami: there is19:31
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: when we have some dist routers and some legacy routers in a tenant19:31
SumitNaiksatamrouter:firewam is n:119:31
SwamiIf there is a direct correlation between a FWaaS and router, we can make use of it and raise an exception.19:31
badvelisumit: even if we throw exception and ask to remove the firewall19:31
SridarKand if FWaaS is configured after19:31
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: and then we trigger migration19:32
badveliif remove the firewall and then configure dvr19:32
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: i am not sure if this is a valid use case19:32
SumitNaiksatamSridarK: the same logic will apply, right?19:32
badveliand then if firewall is configured19:32
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: i was just saying we should go thru the use cases to be sure we don't miss19:32
SumitNaiksatamSridarK: because we are still left with only one firewall per tenant19:32
SwamiSomething is better than not breaking anything while we migrate.19:32
SumitNaiksatamSridarK: in the absence of service insertion19:33
badvelido we need to handle the reverse case?19:33
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: but the tenant has different types of routers19:33
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: i am not sure that there is an issue19:33
SumitNaiksatamSridarK: ok, but its still one firewall, right?19:33
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: just more investigation to make sure19:33
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: yes19:33
SumitNaiksatamSridarK: i am not sure that is an issue with migration19:33
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: for vpnaas - it is also one specific router that they track19:33
badveliswami: as you had mentioned the reverse case19:33
SwamiSridarK: SumitNaiksatam:badveli: Please give it a thought and we can discuss this through email exchange what would be the right option.19:34
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: where we are different19:34
SumitNaiksatamSridarK: its an issue about supporting both modes at the same time19:34
SridharRamaswamySwami: quick question on VPNaaS + DVR, will we raise a similar exception if the router is in dvr mode and tenant tries to create a vpn connection ?19:34
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: yes19:34
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: and if that is even valid19:34
SumitNaiksatamok we are running short of time19:34
SwamiYes we are planning to prevent it from happening. I have raised a bug for it.19:34
SumitNaiksatamso a suggestion19:35
badveliswami> the reverse case is a valid one?19:35
badvelifrom dvr to legacy19:35
badveliwe allowed to go to dvr19:35
Swami#link https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/135646719:35
SumitNaiksatamSwami: the router on a single node is considered as a legacy or still a DVR?19:35
badveliand then user configured firewall19:35
*** pcm__ has left #openstack-meeting-319:36
SwamiSumitNaiksatam: The router on a single node will still be considered 'dvr' if the agent is running in a dvr mode.19:36
SumitNaiksatamSwami: ok good19:36
SridharRamaswamySwami: thanks!19:36
SumitNaiksatamso my suggestion19:36
badvelisumit: my worry is we need to consider the check in both directions19:36
SumitNaiksatamhow about we only support either the legacy router, or the DVR19:37
SumitNaiksatamat any given time19:37
SumitNaiksatamnot a combination19:37
*** banix has quit IRC19:37
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: ok so it is a tenant wide attribute for the router type19:38
SumitNaiksatamalso migration for legacy router to DVR will not be supported, if firewall is associated with tenant19:38
SumitNaiksatamSridarK: only when using FWaaS19:38
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: yes interesting thought19:38
SumitNaiksatami am proposing that we constrain the scenarios we support19:39
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: and we can probab check that as new routers are added19:39
SumitNaiksatamSridarK: yeah19:39
badvelisumit: should we consider the same from moving dvr to legacy19:40
Swamibadveli: Right now converting a dvr to centralized router is not targeted and is of low importance.19:40
SumitNaiksatambadveli: yes19:40
SumitNaiksatamSwami: yeah19:40
SumitNaiksatamso to summarize19:40
*** marun has quit IRC19:41
SumitNaiksatam1. An exception is raised when attempting to migrate a legacy router to DVR if a FWaaS firewall is associated with it19:41
SumitNaiksatamthe remediation would be to delete the firewall for that tenant19:41
SumitNaiksatamand then attempt the migration again19:42
*** eghobo has quit IRC19:42
SumitNaiksatam2. FWaaS firewall can be applied only when all the routers for a tenant are of the same type (either DVR or legacy)19:42
*** eghobo has joined #openstack-meeting-319:42
Swami+1 on option 119:42
SumitNaiksatam3. An exception is raised when attempting to migrate DVR to legacy router if a FWaaS firewall is associated with the DVR19:43
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: (2) can be done quite easily19:43
SumitNaiksatamSridarK: thats nice19:44
SumitNaiksatamSwami: badveli: your opinion on 2 and 3?19:44
*** eghobo has quit IRC19:45
badvelii think 2 is a good19:45
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: i think u have covered all cases19:45
badvelilooks to me but as swami pointed out the reverse one is not a important one19:45
badveli3 is also good19:45
SumitNaiksatamSwami: ?19:45
SwamiDo you guys want to check each and every router before a FWaaS is assigned to make sure if they are all of the same type.19:45
SridarKbadveli: i can point u to code for (2) if u want to dig more on this19:45
badvelithanks Sridark19:46
badveliI will sync up with you19:46
SumitNaiksatamSwami: we already have to apply the firewall on all routers19:46
SridarKbadveli: sounds good19:46
SumitNaiksatamSwami: and these are routers per tenant19:46
SumitNaiksatamSwami: not the global space19:46
SwamiYes, but as routers are created, how will you keep track of all routers.19:47
*** banix has joined #openstack-meeting-319:47
SridarKSwami: we plug into router creation19:47
SwamiIn terms of tenant's routers they are always going to be the same.19:47
SridarKas that is when we add FWaaS rules to new routers as they are created19:47
SwamiUnless an admin modifys the tenant's router.19:47
SwamiSo summit are you guys planning to do all three options: 1, 2 and 3.19:48
SumitNaiksatamSwami: i am asking19:49
SumitNaiksatamSwami: so 1 and 3 are complementary19:49
SwamiOption 2: The tenants will always get the same type of routers and they don't get a choice to change the mode.19:49
SwamiSo your existing code should work on Option 2.19:50
SumitNaiksatamSwami: sorrry i did not understand19:50
SumitNaiksatamSwami: i thought you said you are supporting a mixed mode19:50
SwamiOption 1: and Option 3: are for both direction migration19:50
SumitNaiksatamSwami: wherein a given tenant could have both DVR and legacy routers at the same time19:51
SumitNaiksatamSwami: is that not the case?19:51
SwamiSumitNaiksatam: I mentioned that we support mixed mode even on a single node. But only for "admin". A tenant may only create a single type of router that is been defined by the "cloud admin".19:51
*** MaxV has quit IRC19:51
*** celttechie has joined #openstack-meeting-319:51
SumitNaiksatamSwami: ok19:52
SumitNaiksatamSwami: so then the option 2 still applies, since there is at least some way to have routers in a mixed mode19:52
SwamiYes I agree.19:52
SumitNaiksatamSwami: and in that case i am saying, that if one wants to apply FWaaS firewall, then the mixed mode will not be supported19:53
*** seizadi has joined #openstack-meeting-319:53
*** otherwiseguy has joined #openstack-meeting-319:54
SumitNaiksatamSwami: so in other words, lets say we have a DVR19:54
*** natarajk1 has left #openstack-meeting-319:54
SumitNaiksatamSwami: and a FWaaS firewall applied to that19:54
SumitNaiksatamSwami: and then the admin tries to create a legacy router19:55
SumitNaiksatamSwami: we can check for that tenant, and disallow the legacy router creation19:55
SumitNaiksatamSwami: similarly, if a DVR and legacy router exists, and now the FWaaS firewall is attempted to be created for that tenant19:56
SumitNaiksatamSwami: we will not allow the firewall creation19:56
SwamiYou mean you will prevent the migration based on the tenant and the firewall19:56
SumitNaiksatamSwami: migration is cases 1 and 319:57
SumitNaiksatamSwami: we are talking about case 219:57
SwamiIn case when you say you are going to disallow the legacy router creation. Will the firewall block the router creation.19:57
SumitNaiksatamSwami: not migration, either bein able to create routers in the mixed mode (when FwaaS firewall is present) or being able to create Fwaas firewall when routers in mixed mode are present19:57
SumitNaiksatamSwami: that is something we need to decide19:58
SwamiSumitNaiksatam: I think we need some phone line discussion for this topic. I am missing something.19:58
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: FWaaS creation failure on a tenant with DVR and legacy - can be done for sure19:58
SumitNaiksatamSwami: i think the check is similar to the check for migration19:58
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: but as u suggest the first case in (2) depends on DVR as we usually pick up the router creation event19:59
SumitNaiksatamSridarK: can we perform all the checks in the firewall code?20:00
SwamiYes, DVR should basically allow router creation either way based on the "global default" flag or the admin overriden flag.20:00
SumitNaiksatamSridarK: as opposed to DVR having to throw any of these exceptions?20:00
SridarKWe can perform the checks for both cases in 220:00
SridarKwe can act on 2b - fail fw creation20:00
badveliif we have the router update events20:01
SumitNaiksatamSridarK Swami: so essentially all three cases are covered by router create and update events20:01
SridarKbut on 2a - preventing a router of specific type from getting created - that is a bit tricky20:01
SumitNaiksatambadveli: yes we dont act on them yet (if i recall correctly)20:01
SumitNaiksatamSridarK: dont we just have to check if any existing router is of a different type?20:02
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: yes we can do that for sure20:02
SumitNaiksatamSridarK: as soon as we encounter the first one, we raise an exception20:02
SumitNaiksatamSridarK: if not we continue checking20:02
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: aah ok we just raise the exception20:02
badveliSumit: We can start thinking about the three cases20:02
SumitNaiksatamSridarK: of course the first check is that a firewall is present for this tenant20:02
badveliin firewall20:03
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: we cannot control the router creation of a diff type20:03
SumitNaiksatamSridarK: why?20:03
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: once we get the router added - the router is already there20:03
SumitNaiksatamSridarK: ah becuase, we inherit from the l3 agent20:03
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: yes20:03
*** lblanchard has quit IRC20:03
SumitNaiksatamso i take back all that i said then20:04
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: so we can say that this is a problem20:04
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: but we cannot stop the router creation as it is already there20:04
*** armax has joined #openstack-meeting-320:04
SumitNaiksatamSwami: then those exceptions have to come from DVR20:04
SumitNaiksatamSwami: so we can stop the firewall creation20:04
SumitNaiksatamSwami: not the router creation20:04
*** mspreitz has joined #openstack-meeting-320:04
SwamiSumitNaiksatam: where do you want the firewall creation to be stopped.20:05
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: trying to create a fw on a tenant with diff router types - we can handle for sure20:05
SumitNaiksatamSwami: we can control the firewall creation in the firewall code20:05
SumitNaiksatamSwami: you need not have to worry about that20:05
*** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-320:05
SumitNaiksatamSwami: as SridarK said20:05
SumitNaiksatamSwami: its the router creation that you would need to control20:06
SumitNaiksatamSwami SridarK even for that, can we define some kind of a pre-commit hook in the DVR?20:06
SumitNaiksatamthat fwaas can implement20:06
*** banix has quit IRC20:06
SumitNaiksatamso prior to router creation, DVR can just call that hook20:06
SumitNaiksatamif fwaas is configured20:07
Swamiguys I think we are complicating things here.20:07
*** alexsyip has joined #openstack-meeting-320:07
SumitNaiksatamthen the fwaas can decide whether to throw an exception20:07
SwamiThe minimum requirement here is option 1: for migration.20:07
SumitNaiksatamthat way none of the fwaas specific logic leaks into the DVR20:07
SumitNaiksatamSwami: even for that option, rather than the DVR code doing a check for firewall, it can just make a call on the fwaas hook20:08
SwamiYes, that would be nice.20:09
SumitNaiksatamSwami: that way you dont even have to do the processing for raising the exception20:10
*** marun has joined #openstack-meeting-320:10
SumitNaiksatamok we are way over the meeting time20:11
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: we have set a record :-)20:11
SumitNaiksatamSridarK badveli: do you want to summarize this and add ot the wiki?20:11
badveliwe will discuss and will do20:11
SumitNaiksatamand perhaps Swami and the rest of the DVR team can review it once there20:11
badvelithanks for the inputs swami and sumit20:11
SridarKSumitNaiksatam: sure - we can may be also have an email thread20:11
badvelisridar and myslef will sync up20:11
badveliand write down20:11
*** banix has joined #openstack-meeting-320:12
Swamithanks guys20:12
Swamibye20:12
SridarKbye20:12
SumitNaiksatam#action SridarK badveli to update FWaaS/DVR wiki and add migration and mixed mode operation semantics in presence of fwaas firewall20:12
SumitNaiksatamthanks all for attending20:12
SumitNaiksatam#endmeeting20:12
*** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings"20:12
badvelithanks all20:12
SridarKthanks20:12
openstackMeeting ended Wed Aug 13 20:12:32 2014 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)20:12
SridarKbye20:12
openstackMinutes:        http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_fwaas/2014/networking_fwaas.2014-08-13-18.40.html20:12
openstackMinutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_fwaas/2014/networking_fwaas.2014-08-13-18.40.txt20:12
openstackLog:            http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_fwaas/2014/networking_fwaas.2014-08-13-18.40.log.html20:12
*** SridarK has quit IRC20:12
*** emagana has joined #openstack-meeting-320:13
*** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-320:24
*** Swami has quit IRC20:25
*** thangp has quit IRC20:27
*** banix has quit IRC20:27
*** julim_ has quit IRC20:28
*** yamamoto has quit IRC20:29
*** s3wong has joined #openstack-meeting-320:34
*** celttechie has quit IRC20:38
*** cbader has quit IRC20:46
*** dconde has quit IRC20:48
*** asahlin has quit IRC20:49
*** asahlin has joined #openstack-meeting-320:49
*** MaxV has quit IRC20:52
*** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-320:52
*** dconde has joined #openstack-meeting-320:56
*** marun has quit IRC20:56
*** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-320:59
*** emagana has quit IRC21:02
*** emagana has joined #openstack-meeting-321:02
*** eghobo has joined #openstack-meeting-321:02
*** ruhe has left #openstack-meeting-321:02
*** mspreitz has quit IRC21:03
*** peristeri has quit IRC21:05
*** bradjone has quit IRC21:05
*** cjellick_ has joined #openstack-meeting-321:06
*** celttechie has joined #openstack-meeting-321:07
*** cjellick has quit IRC21:09
*** seizadi has quit IRC21:10
*** seizadi has joined #openstack-meeting-321:10
*** cjellick_ has quit IRC21:11
*** zz_johnthetubagu has quit IRC21:12
*** ivar-lazzaro has joined #openstack-meeting-321:13
*** zz_johnthetubagu has joined #openstack-meeting-321:15
*** zz_johnthetubagu is now known as johnthetubaguy21:15
*** jtomasek_ has quit IRC21:15
*** mfer has quit IRC21:16
*** marun has joined #openstack-meeting-321:17
*** yamamoto has quit IRC21:18
*** SridharR_ has joined #openstack-meeting-321:24
*** SridharRamaswamy has quit IRC21:27
*** SridharR_ has quit IRC21:29
*** igordcard has joined #openstack-meeting-321:32
*** MaxV has quit IRC21:34
*** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-321:34
*** thomasem has quit IRC21:42
*** emagana has quit IRC21:42
*** emagana has joined #openstack-meeting-321:43
*** emagana has quit IRC21:43
*** emagana has joined #openstack-meeting-321:44
*** jaypipes has joined #openstack-meeting-321:52
*** jaypipes has quit IRC21:53
*** HenryG_ is now known as HenryG21:57
*** flaviof is now known as flaviof_zzz21:59
*** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-322:02
*** emagana has quit IRC22:03
*** emagana has joined #openstack-meeting-322:03
*** hemanth_ has quit IRC22:07
*** jpomero has quit IRC22:16
*** jpomero has joined #openstack-meeting-322:17
*** jpomero has quit IRC22:17
*** jpomero has joined #openstack-meeting-322:18
*** jaypipes has joined #openstack-meeting-322:22
*** seizadi1 has joined #openstack-meeting-322:23
*** seizadi has quit IRC22:23
*** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC22:27
*** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting-322:28
*** MaxV has quit IRC22:32
*** thomasem has joined #openstack-meeting-322:37
*** emagana has quit IRC22:38
*** emagana has joined #openstack-meeting-322:38
*** emagana has quit IRC22:43
*** jgrimm has quit IRC22:44
*** markmcclain1 has quit IRC22:52
*** emagana has joined #openstack-meeting-322:52
*** thomasem has quit IRC22:53
*** thomasem has joined #openstack-meeting-322:55
*** thomasem has quit IRC22:55
*** chuckC has quit IRC22:58
*** chuckC has joined #openstack-meeting-322:58
*** ivar-lazzaro has quit IRC22:59
*** otherwiseguy has quit IRC23:01
*** chuckC has quit IRC23:01
*** ivar-lazzaro has joined #openstack-meeting-323:02
*** krotscheck has quit IRC23:03
*** krotscheck has joined #openstack-meeting-323:03
*** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting-323:08
*** carl_baldwin has quit IRC23:10
*** armax has quit IRC23:23
*** otherwiseguy has joined #openstack-meeting-323:23
*** dconde has quit IRC23:29
*** thomasem has joined #openstack-meeting-323:34
*** thomasem has quit IRC23:34
*** chuckC has joined #openstack-meeting-323:37
*** rudrarugge has joined #openstack-meeting-323:39
*** igordcard has quit IRC23:40
*** emagana has quit IRC23:44
*** emagana has joined #openstack-meeting-323:45
*** Sukhdev has joined #openstack-meeting-323:45
*** thomasem has joined #openstack-meeting-323:46
*** thomasem has quit IRC23:46
*** emagana has quit IRC23:49
*** jamielennox|away is now known as jamielennox23:51
*** markmcclain1 has joined #openstack-meeting-323:56
*** markmcclain has quit IRC23:56

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!