15:02:01 <matrohon> #startmeeting bgpvpn
15:02:02 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Aug 25 15:02:01 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is matrohon. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:02:03 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:02:04 <doude> Hi!
15:02:05 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'bgpvpn'
15:02:08 <doude> matrohon: yes
15:02:34 <matrohon> #topic : announcement
15:02:49 <matrohon> not much to announce for me
15:02:52 <matrohon> any one?
15:03:44 <matrohon> ok let's move to the next topic
15:04:10 <matrohon> #topic : split to attachment extension
15:04:34 <matrohon> so we had an interesting discussion on the ML this week
15:04:49 <matrohon> #link https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org&q=subject:%22Re\%3A+\[openstack\-dev\]+\[Neutron\][bgpvpn\]+Service+Plugin+vs+Service%09driver%22&o=newest
15:05:32 <matrohon> I proposed to split attachment to extension, but as salv-orlando said, it doesn't seem to be a good idea
15:05:58 <matrohon> we would end up having different API depending on the backend
15:06:05 <janscheurich> matrohon: what was your conclusion of the discussion?
15:06:47 <matrohon> I leaning toward implementing the API described in the spec
15:07:03 <matrohon> and start by implementing the network attachment
15:07:27 <matrohon> for every backend, since it is also targeted by ODL
15:08:09 <janscheurich> +1, but we will implement the Router attachment in the API and leave it to drivers to reject it as unsupported?
15:08:33 <matrohon> once it works with net attachment, we can start coding the router attachment
15:09:05 <matrohon> but I think that every backend are able to manage router attachments
15:09:18 <pcarver> I think that makes sense. We want to eventually converge on similar functionality across backends, but obviously we can't dictate what the backends currently support.
15:09:31 <janscheurich> +1 for ODL
15:09:49 <pcarver> By providing a Neutron API that describes what *should* be supported we provide motivation for the backends to develop that support.
15:10:08 <matrohon> pcarver, +1
15:10:27 <matrohon> the issue is for nuage, which is not compatible with net attachment for the moment
15:10:48 <matrohon> so it seems that nuage won't provide a driver for the first releases of bgpvpn
15:11:09 <janscheurich> And we stick to the service driver plugin architecture?
15:11:27 <pcarver> matrohon: or perhaps wishful thinking, but Nuage could provide people to help develop the router attachment part in parallel
15:11:49 <matrohon> pcarver, +100 :)
15:12:17 <pcarver> Then, if they can enhance their backend they'd have the advantage of being the first to support both options
15:12:47 <matrohon> pcaraver : with the ref implementation : bagpipe :)
15:12:57 <matrohon> and ODL probably
15:13:17 <matrohon> ok let's agree on that :
15:14:17 <matrohon> #info : we focus on a implementing the network attachment first, supported by every backends included in tree
15:14:48 <matrohon> #topic : service driver vs service plugin
15:15:07 <matrohon> this was the main point of the ML thread
15:15:30 <matrohon> I discussed with doude who started to implement the contrail backend
15:15:47 <matrohon> we agreed on salv-orlando proposal :
15:16:36 <matrohon> having a standalone plugin for contrail and a generic plugin that loads one driver
15:16:46 <matrohon> for other backends
15:16:54 <salv-orlando> did I ever made a proposal?
15:17:11 <matrohon> salv-orlando, yes you did ^
15:17:36 <matrohon> salv-orlando, thanks for this proposal :) it make sense for the bgpvpn project
15:18:13 <matrohon> the generic plugin will provide db persistency before calling the driver
15:18:54 <matrohon> does it make sense for everyone?
15:19:02 <janscheurich> Will it also clean up the DB if the call to the driver fails?
15:19:53 <matrohon> janscheurich, this is the tricky part, ML2 had the same issue...
15:20:39 <janscheurich> I know. We need to have compatible approaches with ML2 to be able to talk to the same backend from different plugins
15:20:54 <matrohon> janscheurich, AFAIR ML2 proposal was to retry untill the backend works
15:21:14 <matrohon> janscheurich, we have to check what is done in ML2
15:21:35 <janscheurich> matrohon: agree!
15:22:04 <matrohon> doude, are you ok, for a standalone contrail plugin
15:22:11 <matrohon> ?
15:22:22 <doude> yes, I am
15:22:32 <janscheurich> I will check with our ML2/ODL experts
15:22:48 <doude> we need to revert the patch I merged to split driver in two categories
15:23:11 <matrohon> #info : contrail will implement its own bgpvpn plugin, while ODL and backend will whare a generic plugin to consistently manage the db layer
15:23:57 <matrohon> #topic : backend impelmentation
15:24:07 <matrohon> #undo
15:24:09 <openstack> Removing item from minutes: <ircmeeting.items.Topic object at 0xa41b4d0>
15:24:13 <matrohon> #topic : backend implementation
15:24:48 <matrohon> any update fot the implementation of the ODL driver
15:24:56 <matrohon> janscheurich, ^
15:26:29 <janscheurich> matrohon: Not yet. We are currently planning the work in the team; ODL driver and ODL Neutron North-bound
15:26:50 <matrohon> janscheurich, thanks for the update
15:26:59 <janscheurich> Work will start very soon
15:27:13 <matrohon> doude, any update for the contrail plugin?
15:28:17 <doude> matrohon: I'm close to finish it, but it was in standby during the last 3 weeks. I hope to propose a review in a week
15:28:35 <matrohon> doude : great!
15:29:05 <matrohon> nothing new for bagpipe :)
15:29:05 <doude> I also start a dicussion with the OpenContrail community to add the bgpvpn_connection resource to Contrail data model
15:29:32 <matrohon> doude : do you have a link to a ML thread?
15:29:46 <doude> so the BGPVPN Contrail plugin will be dependent to a recent Contrail version
15:30:20 <doude> matrohon: I just discuss that on IRC for the moment but I plan to send an email on the Contrail mailing list
15:30:34 <matrohon> doude : ok
15:30:51 <matrohon> doude : put me in the loop if needed
15:30:57 <doude> sure
15:31:02 <doude> thanks
15:31:17 <matrohon> #topic : bugs and blueprints
15:32:11 <matrohon> I keep on working on https://blueprints.launchpad.net/bgpvpn/+spec/split-association-api
15:32:31 <matrohon> I'm about to push the db layer
15:34:04 <janscheurich> I would also like to resume the discussion of the static routes discussion because we will need it for the network attachment.
15:34:18 <janscheurich> *blueprint
15:34:41 <janscheurich> who is interested?
15:34:58 <matrohon> this bp ?  https://blueprints.launchpad.net/bgpvpn/+spec/static-routes
15:35:20 <janscheurich> yes. we can take that off-line also
15:36:06 <matrohon> janscheurich, ok
15:36:28 <matrohon> #topic : open discussion
15:36:40 <janscheurich> Please add you comments proposals to the wiki
15:37:07 <matrohon> janscheurich, do you mean etherpad?
15:38:19 <janscheurich> sorry, etherpad of course
15:38:20 <matrohon> anyone wants to discuss anything else?
15:39:31 <janscheurich> matrohon: no
15:39:47 <matrohon> ok so let's en the meeting
15:39:54 <matrohon> thanks everyone
15:39:58 <matrohon> #endmeeting