Friday, 2020-12-11

*** _erlon_ has quit IRC00:10
*** macz_ has quit IRC00:14
*** ociuhandu has joined #openstack-meeting00:21
*** yasufum has joined #openstack-meeting00:24
*** ociuhandu has quit IRC00:25
*** baojg has quit IRC00:46
*** baojg has joined #openstack-meeting00:46
*** armax has quit IRC01:10
*** yasufum has quit IRC01:37
*** mlavalle has quit IRC01:38
*** armax has joined #openstack-meeting01:41
*** tdasilva_ has quit IRC01:44
*** baojg has quit IRC01:49
*** dsariel has quit IRC01:49
*** baojg has joined #openstack-meeting01:50
*** baojg has quit IRC01:57
*** baojg has joined #openstack-meeting01:58
*** armax has quit IRC02:02
*** smcginnis has joined #openstack-meeting02:19
*** smcginnis has quit IRC02:24
*** yasufum has joined #openstack-meeting03:08
*** lifeless has quit IRC03:31
*** lifeless has joined #openstack-meeting03:33
*** rcernin has quit IRC03:39
*** rcernin has joined #openstack-meeting03:40
*** ricolin has quit IRC03:43
*** dmacpher has quit IRC05:06
*** dmacpher has joined #openstack-meeting05:08
*** ricolin has joined #openstack-meeting05:09
*** timburke has quit IRC05:31
*** timburke has joined #openstack-meeting05:31
*** evrardjp_ has quit IRC05:33
*** evrardjp has joined #openstack-meeting05:33
*** vishalmanchanda has joined #openstack-meeting05:47
*** ociuhandu has joined #openstack-meeting05:50
*** ociuhandu has quit IRC05:54
*** dklyle has quit IRC07:28
*** slaweq has joined #openstack-meeting07:45
*** rpittau|afk is now known as rpittau07:57
*** rcernin has quit IRC08:07
*** smcginnis has joined #openstack-meeting08:10
*** rcernin has joined #openstack-meeting08:14
*** smcginnis has quit IRC08:15
*** evrardjp has quit IRC08:15
*** evrardjp has joined #openstack-meeting08:16
*** zbr has quit IRC08:23
*** zbr has joined #openstack-meeting08:23
*** zbr has quit IRC08:26
*** zbr has joined #openstack-meeting08:27
*** tosky has joined #openstack-meeting08:47
*** ociuhandu has joined #openstack-meeting09:00
*** ociuhandu has joined #openstack-meeting09:00
*** rcernin has quit IRC09:27
*** e0ne has joined #openstack-meeting10:04
*** baojg has quit IRC10:08
*** baojg has joined #openstack-meeting10:08
*** macz_ has joined #openstack-meeting10:09
*** smcginnis has joined #openstack-meeting10:11
*** ociuhandu has quit IRC10:12
*** macz_ has quit IRC10:14
*** smcginnis has quit IRC10:16
*** ociuhandu has joined #openstack-meeting10:16
*** yasufum has quit IRC10:23
*** e0ne has quit IRC10:34
*** e0ne has joined #openstack-meeting10:48
*** ociuhandu has quit IRC10:52
*** ociuhandu has joined #openstack-meeting10:58
*** yasufum has joined #openstack-meeting11:10
*** yasufum has quit IRC11:11
*** slaweq_ has joined #openstack-meeting11:46
*** ociuhandu has quit IRC11:58
*** ociuhandu has joined #openstack-meeting11:58
*** slaweq has quit IRC12:02
*** slaweq_ has quit IRC12:03
*** ociuhandu has quit IRC12:03
*** slaweq has joined #openstack-meeting12:06
*** baojg has quit IRC12:17
*** baojg has joined #openstack-meeting12:18
*** slaweq has quit IRC12:20
*** slaweq has joined #openstack-meeting12:21
*** kopecmartin has quit IRC12:22
*** kopecmartin has joined #openstack-meeting12:26
*** ociuhandu has joined #openstack-meeting12:33
*** ociuhandu_ has joined #openstack-meeting12:58
*** ociuhandu has quit IRC13:01
*** smcginnis has joined #openstack-meeting13:16
*** macz_ has joined #openstack-meeting13:25
*** macz_ has quit IRC13:30
*** smcginnis has quit IRC13:42
*** smcginnis has joined #openstack-meeting13:56
*** mlavalle has joined #openstack-meeting13:58
*** lajoskatona has joined #openstack-meeting13:59
*** bpetermann has joined #openstack-meeting14:00
slaweq#startmeeting neutron_drivers14:01
openstackMeeting started Fri Dec 11 14:01:21 2020 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is slaweq. Information about MeetBot at
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.14:01
*** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: neutron_drivers)"14:01
openstackThe meeting name has been set to 'neutron_drivers'14:01
slaweqwe are still waiting for njohnston: haleyb and yamamoto14:02
slaweqlets give them few more minutes to join14:02
* haleyb has to leave early about :3014:03
slaweqok, I think we can start, yamamoto isn't available on irc even so probably he will not join14:03
slaweq#topic RFEs14:04
*** openstack changes topic to "RFEs (Meeting topic: neutron_drivers)"14:04
slaweqagenda for the meeting is at
slaweqfirst RFE is from rubasov14:04
openstackLaunchpad bug 1905295 in neutron "[RFE] Allow multiple external gateways on a router" [Wishlist,New] - Assigned to Bence Romsics (bence-romsics)14:04
rubasovI have little experience around l3 in neutron, so let me know please what you think about this14:06
mlavallerubasov: unacceptable after the ascii art got messed up.... ;-)14:06
rubasovthis etherpad has the original:
rubasov(beyond the better figure nothing new there, I just prepared the rfe in here)14:07
mlavalleahhh, much nicer, thanks!14:07
amotokiI dropped my comment just before the meeting. I think we can break down the problem into pieces. The problem statement includes several points: multiple ext gws, ECMP and/or router protocols14:08
*** ZhuXiaoYu has joined #openstack-meeting14:09
rubasovyes, bgp and ecmp is related and I tried to separate one sub-problem of the whole setup here14:10
haleyband you raised two good points - how do NAT and floating IP work in this scenario?  for example, on a failure of one link does NAT just stop for the down GW?  can the floating IP successfully use the other network?14:12
haleybamotoki did that is14:12
rubasovmy main use case would always have enable_snat=False, since bgp would make floating ips unnecessary14:14
slaweqhaleyb: I'm not sure if I understand - how FIP from one external network can work in the other one? Or both such gateways should be from the same neutron network?14:15
haleybslaweq: right, that was my point, although i'm sure with BGP it could be done but not otherwise.  just thinking of issues14:15
slaweqhaleyb: ok14:16
lajoskatonaso it can be only done with dynamic-routing like the FIP for routed networks stuff recently?14:17
lajoskatonaor only worth doing it I mean14:17
ralonsohFIP for routed networks is still not merged14:18
amotokiif we have multiple external networks we need routing protocols to advertise the route for FIP.14:18
lajoskatonayeah, that's true, but quite close to it14:18
haleybamotoki: right, one network with multiple subnets for FIP is fine, but two networks not so much14:19
amotokiif we have multiple gateways on a single external network, i think what we need is to configure multiple next hops with equal cost in a neutron router.14:19
ralonsohshould be the BGP the one assigning this next hop for each FIP?14:21
slaweqrubasov: You wrote there about potential alternative, which is to allow announcing routes from the networks plugged to the router as internal networks14:21
slaweqdid You explore this more?14:21
rubasovslaweq: one part I still don't know unfortunately14:22
slaweqrubasov: for me it looks like easier, and less intrusive change maybe, no?14:23
rubasovwhether neutron-dynamic-routing uses the network external bit or the router's external_gw_info on generating the list of advertized routes14:23
rubasovslaweq: that alternative looks like a smaller change, but also introduces some conceptual confusion about what's internal and what's external14:24
mlavalleso you are striving for the functionality and conceptual clarity14:25
mlavallewould a PoC help to clarify some of the lingering questions from the team?14:26
rubasovyes, unless it's impossible (or too expensive to do)14:26
mlavalleand the complexity issue raised by Yulong14:27
rubasovwe are open to that if the team is interested in it14:27
mlavallethe complexity issue is not minor. L3 is pretty complex as it is today14:28
amotokiI wonder what kinds of requirements you would like to achieve. redundancy of next hop? redundancy of external networks? or more.14:28
amotoki a neutron router is hosted on a single node, so is there any difference between multi next hop on a single network and multi networks.14:28
lajoskatonaWhat happens if we do it gradually, I mean like do PoC for legacy router, and see if it's possible?14:28
slaweqspeaking about graduality - there is also ovn which has got own l3 implementation :)14:29
rubasovamotoki: one router may fail out of R1-R214:29
mlavalleand that might provide an incentive to clarify the use case requirementes14:29
rubasovone router may fail out of R3-R414:29
mlavalleas amotoki seems to be suggesting with his questions14:30
amotokirubasov: the proposal does not talk about R1-R2 relationship. my quesion comes from here.14:30
haleybslaweq: sorry, i have to run, this is a good discussion though...14:30
slaweqhaleyb: sure, see You14:31
rubasovamotoki: that's a valid point, will add it to the rfe14:31
rubasovR1-R2 are two sides of an active-active HA router14:32
mlavalleso it seems we might be able to take two next steps: clarify the RFE and some sort of PoC?14:32
amotokimlavalle: agree14:33
slaweqmlavalle: and explore this alternative mentioned by rubasov14:33
rubasovslaweq: maybe that's a poc variant14:34
slaweqrubasov: yes14:34
slaweqjust wanted to make sure that it will not be forgotten :)14:34
*** TrevorV has joined #openstack-meeting14:34
rubasovack :-)14:34
mlavalleyeap... I think it is an interesting proposal. We need to clarify it a bit. I think a question to explore is whether we can do something with neutron dynamic routing to cover this use case. Maybe tweaking it a bit14:34
slaweqso it seems that we have a plan for next steps with that14:35
rubasovlooks like to me too14:35
slaweqand we will get back to that discussion when we will have that additional info14:35
slaweqthx rubasov14:35
rubasovthanks everyone14:35
slaweqI will sum it up in the LP's comment after the meeting14:35
mlavallerubasov: thanks for the proposal!14:35
amotokiyeah, it is an interesting topic14:36
rubasovwill get back to you as soon as I have some results14:36
slaweqso, we have next one
openstackLaunchpad bug 1905391 in neutron "[RFE] VPNaaS support for OVN" [Medium,Triaged] - Assigned to Bodo Petermann (bpetermann)14:36
mlavalleahhh, good that we have enough time to give the stage to bpetermann. I didn't want him to show up for nithing :-)14:37
slaweqwe don't have folks from ovn subteam here probably but we can still discuss that here14:38
bpetermannWe want to offer VPNaaS in our new region which will use OVN so we started an implementation14:38
slaweqI know that e.g. lucasgomes was looking into that rfe and he didn't had anything against14:38
mlavallebpetermann: who's your employer?14:39
slaweqbpetermann: I'm now reading amotoki's comment in LP - is there any API change needed for that?14:40
bpetermannNo, the VPN API will work the same way as before and no additions needed in Neutron either. Only maybe something if you want to manually fiddle with the VPN agent14:41
mlavalleseems to be just a "change of driver", to simplify the proposal, right?14:41
mlavalleAPI remains the same14:41
bpetermannand configure a different VPN plugin14:42
mlavalleam I correct?14:42
bpetermannAPI remains the same, right14:42
mlavalleyeah, change of plugin or driver. I was using the terms interchangeably14:43
amotokiin my understanding, we need a separate VPN agent to run *swan so I think we need some scheduling for load balancing.14:43
amotokiAt least the proposed impl in gerrit has an API for manual scheduling and collect agent mapping.14:43
amotokithis is what I commented about the new API.14:43
amotokiI see no change in the user-facing VPNaaS API.14:44
slaweqamotoki: ok :)14:44
bpetermannthe scheduler code in the proposed code will automatically choose some agent.14:44
slaweqI see now14:44
slaweqin general I think that we can approve that RFE14:45
slaweqof course there will be many things to discuss regarding implementation details14:45
bpetermannsure, waiting for your input..., thanks14:46
mlavalleI agree that we can +1 this RFE14:47
mlavallewith the understanding that there are details to clarify14:47
ralonsohagree +114:47
amotokiI agree to approve the RFE.14:47
mlavallebpetermann: great proposal. Thanks for working on it14:47
slaweqnjohnston: any thoughts?14:47
amotokimy comment is just to try to clarify what are remaining parts.14:48
mlavalleamotoki: ++14:48
njohnstonIt makes sense to me, I don't have any additional questions.  I am generally appreciative of the continued vitality in the vpnaas project.14:48
mlavalleunlike fwaas14:49
slaweqamotoki: I think that Your last comment in LP is great summary of what else we will need14:49
slaweqdo You think we need specs for that?14:49
mlavalleseems security groups were enough to cover that aspect14:49
*** dmacpher has quit IRC14:50
amotokiit is nice to have some doc which explains the relationship between standalone agent and OVN. it will help reviewing codes but  I am okay with either a spec or a in-repo doc.14:51
slaweqamotoki: in-repo doc would be IMO "closer" for the users later to use14:52
slaweqbut that's just my opinion about it14:52
bpetermannI could add some doc soon14:53
amotokislaweq: good point. so do we have a small spec doc?14:53
bpetermannit's not committed yet14:53
slaweqok, so I will mark this RFE as approved and we will discuss implementation details in the review of the patches14:54
slaweqand bpetermann will also propose some doc with details about this new implementation14:54
slaweqok for everyone?14:55
amotokisounds good14:55
slaweqok, thx14:56
slaweqso that is done14:56
slaweqwe have one more rfe on the list14:56
slaweqbut we have just few minutes left today14:56
slaweqand we have one more meeting this year, so I think we can simply start with lajoskatona's rfe next week14:56
slaweqare You ok with that?14:56
lajoskatonayeah I can wait one week :-)14:56
slaweqok, so thanks for attending the meeting14:57
slaweqand see You next week14:57
slaweqhave a great weekend :)14:57
njohnstonyou too!14:57
*** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings ||"14:57
openstackMeeting ended Fri Dec 11 14:57:44 2020 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at . (v 0.1.4)14:57
lajoskatonathanks, bye14:57
openstackMinutes (text):
*** lajoskatona has left #openstack-meeting14:57
*** ralonsoh has left #openstack-meeting14:58
*** bpetermann has quit IRC14:58
*** ociuhandu_ has quit IRC15:00
*** ociuhandu has joined #openstack-meeting15:01
*** ociuhandu has quit IRC15:01
*** ociuhandu has joined #openstack-meeting15:02
*** ociuhandu has quit IRC15:06
*** rpittau is now known as rpittau|afk15:15
*** armax has joined #openstack-meeting15:17
*** ociuhandu has joined #openstack-meeting15:19
*** rcernin has joined #openstack-meeting15:24
*** macz_ has joined #openstack-meeting15:26
*** rcernin has quit IRC15:28
*** macz_ has quit IRC15:31
*** dklyle has joined #openstack-meeting15:48
*** zbr3 has joined #openstack-meeting16:00
*** zbr has quit IRC16:01
*** zbr3 is now known as zbr16:01
*** ZhuXiaoYu has quit IRC16:20
*** ociuhandu_ has joined #openstack-meeting16:28
*** ociuhandu has quit IRC16:31
*** ociuhandu_ has quit IRC16:32
*** moguimar is now known as moguimar|PTOtil216:34
*** e0ne has quit IRC16:53
*** gyee has joined #openstack-meeting17:33
*** tosky has quit IRC17:46
*** e0ne has joined #openstack-meeting18:54
*** e0ne has quit IRC19:08
*** e0ne has joined #openstack-meeting19:29
*** e0ne has quit IRC19:30
*** e0ne has joined #openstack-meeting19:45
*** e0ne has quit IRC19:47
*** e0ne has joined #openstack-meeting19:48
*** TrevorV has quit IRC20:59
*** e0ne has quit IRC21:02
*** rfolco has quit IRC21:05
*** tosky has joined #openstack-meeting21:05
*** jgriffith has quit IRC21:16
*** vishalmanchanda has quit IRC22:03
*** bbowen has quit IRC22:38
*** jgriffith has joined #openstack-meeting22:38
*** bbowen has joined #openstack-meeting22:38
*** bbowen has quit IRC22:38
*** bbowen has joined #openstack-meeting22:41

Generated by 2.17.2 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!