18:30:13 <daneyon_> #startmeeting container-networking
18:30:14 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Nov 12 18:30:13 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is daneyon_. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:30:15 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
18:30:18 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'container_networking'
18:30:32 <daneyon_> Agenda
18:30:36 <daneyon_> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Containers#Agenda
18:30:55 <daneyon_> i'll give everyone a minute to look at the agenda
18:31:08 <daneyon_> #topic roll call
18:31:12 <daneyon_> o/
18:31:14 <adrian_otto> Adrian Otto
18:32:07 <daneyon_> Hey adrian_otto!
18:32:14 <adrian_otto> maybe time to wind down the subteam?
18:32:20 <daneyon_> Looks like it might be just you and I.
18:32:26 <daneyon_> Might not be a bad idea
18:32:40 <adrian_otto> seems that we are in implementation mode now, so less discussion needed
18:33:06 <daneyon_> However, it will help the project if we can get more people participating in networking features of Magnum.
18:33:13 <daneyon_> Let me know what ideas you have.
18:33:24 <daneyon_> true
18:33:33 <adrian_otto> reach out to those who have attended in the past, and let them know when meetings are coming up
18:33:47 <daneyon_> i'm in the process of breaking up patch #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/224367/14
18:33:54 <eghobo> o/
18:33:58 <eghobo> sorry late
18:34:22 <daneyon_> I thought i had the 1st review ready, but i have a merge conflict b/c of recent changes. I should have it tee'd up in a little while.
18:34:33 <daneyon_> hi eghobo
18:35:31 <daneyon_> adrian_otto should we ask community members if they want to continue sub team meeting during the general Magnum meeting?
18:36:16 <adrian_otto> sure, we can ask there. I'd also encourage you to follow up with previously active participants individually to get a sense from them
18:36:38 <daneyon_> adrian_otto: I'll do that.
18:37:06 <daneyon_> adrian_otto do you want to add the agenda topic to the magnum meeting or should i?
18:37:27 <adrian_otto> please add it
18:37:31 <hongbin> o/
18:37:34 <daneyon_> will do
18:37:53 <daneyon_> Hi hongbin
18:37:58 <Tango|2> o/  (sorry I'm late, forgot to update my calendar for the DST)
18:38:04 <hongbin> Hey
18:38:37 <daneyon_> Well... I was thinking of wrapping up the meeting since it was just adrian_otto and I, but it looks like we have an audience.
18:38:44 <daneyon_> thanks everyone for joining
18:39:08 <daneyon_> and sorry for messing up my calendar the last week.
18:39:24 <Tango> I was on vacation anyway last week
18:39:24 <daneyon_> wish we didn't have DST changes :-)
18:39:35 <daneyon_> Tango welcome back
18:39:46 <daneyon_> i'll move quickly
18:39:54 <daneyon_> but i'm a slow typer ;-)
18:40:04 <daneyon_> #topic Review and Discuss Magnum Networking Design Summit
18:40:08 <daneyon_> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/mitaka-magnum-network
18:40:48 <daneyon_> In general I was very pleased with the attendance of the networking DS session
18:41:03 <daneyon_> and I thought we had a lot of good discussion
18:41:36 <daneyon_> We had a fair bit of discussion related to this patch
18:41:44 <daneyon_> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/241866/
18:42:27 <daneyon_> Is Angus Lee in attendance?
18:43:11 <daneyon_> Does the group agree that it's a good idea for the flannel driver to continue to support overlay methods?
18:43:24 <Tango> I missed the discussion because of a conflict with my talk.  But this patch seems like a great idea based on our performance measurement.
18:43:38 <eghobo> daneyon_: it depends ;)
18:43:41 <Tango> It removes one level of overlay encapsulation
18:43:55 <daneyon_> Tango agreed. I have wanted to add the host-gw mode, but have been to busy with implementing the CNM
18:44:22 <Tango> My only thought is how to present the option to the user
18:44:25 <daneyon_> However, I would like to keep the existing overlay options for flannel.
18:44:46 <daneyon_> My vote is for option #2
18:44:54 <adrian_otto> let's make it work first, and make it faster next.
18:45:12 <Tango> Right, we probably want to expose all the options and make it easy to specify them
18:45:19 <eghobo> adrian_otto: +1
18:45:52 <eghobo> daneyon_: I still believe we should drop vxlan
18:45:55 <adrian_otto> step one is just to have sensible defaults that work
18:46:02 <adrian_otto> then make the options so you can change them
18:46:18 <Tango> Currently it's working with the udp and vxlan options with udp as the default, we want to add the gw option
18:46:18 <adrian_otto> and then revisit what the defaults should be based on all available choices
18:46:21 <hongbin> eghobo: not sure if I agree for the dropping of vxlan
18:46:42 <hongbin> eghobo: Possibly, udp is the option that I want to drop if we have to drop one
18:46:52 <daneyon_> adrian_otto agreed. However, supporting option #2 should be easy. If someone in the community wants to implement #2, you'll get my support. However to adrian_otto's point, we need to get the CNM implemented across all bay types and distros
18:46:54 <adrian_otto> why drop vxlan?
18:47:08 <daneyon_> and I could definitely use help in that department
18:47:38 <daneyon_> Tango agreed. I would like to lave existing options. Again, I'm all for #2.
18:47:54 <eghobo> adrian_otto: can anyone explain how it's going to work with Neutron ;)
18:47:57 <daneyon_> later on we can drop config options based on feedback from magnum users
18:48:02 <Tango> I would agree too with #2
18:48:22 <daneyon_> i don't see having the 3 flannel backends burdening the project, devs or users.
18:48:32 <Tango> eghobo: it's really independent of neutron
18:48:33 <adrian_otto> eghobo: with k8s, I don't think we have full clarity on neutron integration to eliminate the overlay
18:48:50 <daneyon_> all, please provide your comments in the review.
18:48:56 <eghobo> daneyon_: CNM? not sure that Kub folks even have plans for that
18:49:01 <daneyon_> i would like to move on since we are short on time
18:49:07 <adrian_otto> but at a conceptual level we should be able to do the functional equivalent of kuryr for k8s
18:49:24 <daneyon_> I mean the Magnum CNM.. look at the specs DIR
18:49:31 <daneyon_> #topic Discuss Docker 1.9 Networking
18:49:34 <daneyon_> #link http://www.meetup.com/Docker-Online-Meetup/events/226522306/
18:49:42 <daneyon_> I just finished attending the ^ event
18:49:46 <eghobo> Tango, adrian_otto: it's exactly my point neutron deal with vxlan and we use it ;)
18:50:02 <daneyon_> For the most part, it's the same libnetwork stuff.
18:50:22 <adrian_otto> I did not see or hear anything that was not presented in previous webinars
18:50:25 <eghobo> something like hw-gw doesn't care about underlying network
18:50:46 <daneyon_> A couple things I noticed is: routing between nets and supports for continuers to attach to multiple nets.
18:50:48 <adrian_otto> I did not fully understand the IPAM solution
18:50:54 <daneyon_> I have not seen these features of libnetwork before
18:50:55 <adrian_otto> it sounded hardwired to me
18:51:02 <adrian_otto> but he said it was pluggable
18:51:30 <daneyon_> I'll need to look at the code b/c I have no idea how libnetwork is passing packets between L3 domains.
18:51:58 <adrian_otto> probably just using host routing and a container that's in multiple network namespaces
18:52:04 <daneyon_> adrian_otto agreed. I know libnet recently implemented pluggable ipam.
18:52:29 <eghobo> daneyon_: also keep in mind, Kub folks not really in libnetwork support yet
18:52:30 <daneyon_> In general, I think it's good for everyone to review libnetwork since it has gone though some recent changes.
18:52:52 <daneyon_> eghobo understood, kube has it's own pluggable model.
18:53:59 <daneyon_> eghobo in a way host-gw does care about the underlying network. Ex> all flannel nodes must be on the same L3 domain.
18:54:04 <eghobo> daneyon_: yes and they have a lot of concern about libnetwork implementation ):
18:54:22 <daneyon_> any questions about libnetwork 1.9?
18:54:33 <eghobo> daneyon_: you mean L2, right?
18:54:38 <daneyon_> moving on then
18:54:55 <Tango> So should we move to Docker 1.9 yet?
18:55:26 <adrian_otto> why not?
18:55:26 <daneyon_> Tango that's a good question
18:55:48 <daneyon_> unless I missed something, libnetwork is still experimental in 1.9.
18:56:10 <daneyon_> but it may be worth it, so we can gain experience.
18:56:14 <Tango> There was mention about new volume support in 1.9, so it may be good to catch that as well
18:56:26 <daneyon_> however, i know getting magnum prod ready is a priority
18:56:51 <daneyon_> adiran_otto i'll pose the question as an agenda item for the magnum meeting.
18:57:31 <daneyon_> Tango agreed. I think it comes down do we want to be on the cutting edge or stability. adrian_otto will have a big voice in this one.
18:58:04 <daneyon_> fyi I am breaking up this patch: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/224367/14
18:58:18 <daneyon_> it included a lot of stuff and was tough on reviewers.
18:58:46 <daneyon_> You will be seeing several patches from me in the coming days and hopefully CNM for swarm will be implemented.
18:59:29 <daneyon_> Whoever added mesos support to magnum, I would love to get your help implementing cnm for mesos :-)
18:59:39 <hongbin> sure
18:59:58 <daneyon_> time to wrap up. Feel free to carry over the conversation to the magnum irc channel
19:00:07 <daneyon_> Thx for attending!!!
19:00:13 <daneyon_> #endmeeting