17:04:38 <Sukhdev> #startmeeting: networking_l2gw
17:04:38 <openstack> Meeting started Mon Jan 18 17:04:38 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is Sukhdev. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:04:39 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
17:04:43 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to '__networking_l2gw'
17:05:20 <Sukhdev> #topic: Agenda
17:05:25 <Sukhdev> #link: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/L2Gateway#Meeting_January_18.2C_2016
17:06:02 <Sukhdev> oferby : So, I worked with armax to get the gate issue resolved
17:06:34 <Sukhdev> now those issues are resolved and we can get the patches merged
17:06:57 <Sukhdev> We were able to approve and merge several patches
17:07:05 <[1]oferby> cool. I finished the internal work and I'm also ready to merge
17:07:38 <Sukhdev> excellent
17:08:01 <[1]oferby> there are 2 groups that are interested in the inter-cloud connection
17:08:21 <Sukhdev> who are those?
17:08:22 <[1]oferby> one is Midokura and the other is another group in Huawei
17:08:54 <[1]oferby> Irena from Midokura has added a bug (feature) on the new API
17:09:00 <[1]oferby> did you see it?
17:09:12 <Sukhdev> I bet there are more people as well - I was discussing this use case in one of the meetings and those people wanted it as well :-):-)
17:09:26 <[1]oferby> :-) good to hear
17:10:07 <Sukhdev> what is the bug number
17:10:13 <Sukhdev> our list is large
17:10:18 <[1]oferby> I woulld like to start the work of official API proposal, although I completed the code for internal use ... is that OK by you?
17:10:27 <[1]oferby> sec
17:11:45 <oferby> https://bugs.launchpad.net/networking-l2gw/+bug/1529863
17:11:46 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1529863 in networking-l2gw "[RFE] extend l2gw api to support multi-site connectivity" [Undecided,New]
17:12:53 <Sukhdev> #link: https://bugs.launchpad.net/networking-l2gw/+bug/1529863
17:12:54 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1529863 in networking-l2gw "[RFE] extend l2gw api to support multi-site connectivity" [Undecided,New]
17:13:15 <Sukhdev> oferby : Thanks - I will review it and add remarks
17:13:42 <Sukhdev> oferby : going back to your other comment - about official API proposal
17:14:07 <Sukhdev> Yes, if you could write up something, that would help
17:14:28 <oferby> sure, I will do that tomorrow.
17:15:07 <Sukhdev> once you have it written it up, please let me know so that I can have the rest of team review it
17:15:41 <oferby> sure. I also want to bring up the issue of seperating the API from the implementation
17:15:59 <oferby> something similar to MLw
17:16:02 <oferby> ML2
17:16:29 <oferby> this will work for other teams that are looking for the API but would like to have their own impl
17:16:36 <oferby> what do you think?
17:17:12 <Sukhdev> maruti had started work on that - where folks can use the mail L2GW API and have their own back-ends
17:17:19 <Sukhdev> have you looked at that patch?
17:17:40 <oferby> no.  wasn't aware of it ....
17:17:48 <oferby> can you send a link?
17:18:58 * Sukhdev looking
17:19:45 <Sukhdev> I think this is the one - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/206638/
17:20:30 <oferby> ok. I will check it out.
17:21:35 <Sukhdev> He wanted to make sure south bound framework is available so that vendors can have their own back-end implementations
17:22:43 <oferby> this is what we want. I will be happy to join the effort here too.
17:23:19 <Sukhdev> review the patch and see if this helps
17:23:36 <Sukhdev> this will give you a starting point at least
17:23:45 <oferby> sure
17:24:17 <Sukhdev> I met with armax last week and we discussed about the work you are doing - we are looking forward to it
17:24:40 <Sukhdev> as soon as you have written it up, send it over
17:25:07 <oferby> I think I will be able to send out the patch tomorrow
17:25:25 <oferby> if nothing will wait for me in the office ..........
17:25:47 <Sukhdev> oferby : my suggestion will be to make sure it has sufficient documentation with it
17:26:21 <Sukhdev> sometimes it is hard to figure out the design from the code - it is better done through documents
17:26:24 <oferby> Irena from Midokura suggested that she will do the documantation
17:26:49 <oferby> she is in a business trip and will join the effort from next week.
17:27:05 <Sukhdev> you may want to post the document along with the patch
17:27:15 <Sukhdev> next week is fine - no worries
17:27:28 <oferby> cool.
17:27:52 <oferby> I have another issue.
17:28:08 <Sukhdev> sure
17:28:29 <oferby> I would like to put the HARDWARE VTEP schema file in our project instead of in OVS
17:29:19 <Sukhdev> I am not sure if I understand
17:29:21 <oferby> it is for the use of the L2GW anyway and I see no reason why we need to ask OVS people for permission to modify the schema whan we are the one to use it.
17:29:24 <oferby> agree?
17:29:52 <Sukhdev> Oh I see -
17:30:31 <Sukhdev> Well, you mean you want to keep a snapshot of it locally -
17:30:52 <Sukhdev> ultimately, it is owned and driven by the ovsdb
17:31:24 <oferby> yes. also there is a small implemantation of hardware emulator which also need to be hosted in L2GW.
17:32:14 <oferby> no other project is using the hardware vtep schema. it was built for the L2GW. it is just a schema, not the DB itself
17:33:05 <oferby> anyone can have their own schema and I see no reason why we should do cross-project work only to add one column in the db, as I did.
17:33:44 <Sukhdev> You had a patch for the IDL support
17:34:12 <oferby> the IDL is owned by OVS because other project are using it
17:34:35 <oferby> no one other than L2GW is using the HARDWARE VTEP schema
17:35:04 <Sukhdev> you mean in the opentack umbrella, right?
17:35:23 <oferby> yes
17:35:32 <Sukhdev> I know many others using HW VTEP schema :-):)
17:35:40 <Sukhdev> correct
17:36:49 <oferby> you mean other projects, not L2GW?
17:36:52 <Sukhdev> I think this should be alright
17:37:14 <Sukhdev> I meant other vendors
17:37:25 <Sukhdev> who use ovsdb
17:37:32 <oferby> right ... still is it L2GW.
17:37:58 <Sukhdev> I am not sure if OVN project uses it or not - but, they want to use L2GW API for it
17:38:25 <oferby> using the API does not mean you have to use OVSDB
17:38:44 <Sukhdev> I mean they use API as well OVSDB
17:38:52 <oferby> actually, Midokura wants the API but they use their own db
17:38:58 <Sukhdev> OVN
17:39:37 <oferby> in case others will want to use the API and teh DB, even better, we must own our db schema.
17:40:01 <Sukhdev> that is why it is so important to have this documented - so that it is easy to understand
17:40:13 <oferby> sure.
17:40:26 <Sukhdev> once you post the document and patch, then we can further detailed discussion
17:40:27 <oferby> we will doc all the changes.
17:40:34 <oferby> sure.
17:40:39 <Sukhdev> sounds good
17:40:42 <Sukhdev> anything else?
17:40:46 <oferby> nop.
17:41:06 <Sukhdev> cool - will look forward to a note from you.
17:41:14 <Sukhdev> Thanks for your time
17:41:20 <oferby> thank you.
17:41:22 <Sukhdev> we will meet later
17:41:25 <Sukhdev> bye
17:41:28 <oferby> bye.
17:41:30 <Sukhdev> #endmeeting