16:01:10 <Sukhdev> #startmeeting ironic_neutron
16:01:10 <openstack> Meeting started Mon Jul 18 16:01:10 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is Sukhdev. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:01:11 <mjturek1> o/
16:01:12 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:01:15 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'ironic_neutron'
16:01:41 <hshiina> o/
16:01:59 <devananda> o/
16:02:01 <Sukhdev> #topic: Agenda
16:02:02 <TheJulia> o/
16:02:06 <Sukhdev> #link: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Ironic-neutron#Meeting_July_18.2C_2016
16:02:51 <Sukhdev> going a bit slow on purpose to give others time to sign in
16:03:05 <mjturek1> fair enough :)
16:03:16 <Sukhdev> #topic: Announcements
16:03:50 <Sukhdev> Good news - we finally made it
16:04:08 <Sukhdev> Most of the critical Ironic patches merged last week
16:04:15 <mjturek1> \o/
16:04:25 <Sukhdev> jroll was suppose to bring beer for celebration :-)
16:04:35 * TheJulia has no beer and is thus sad
16:04:46 * devananda pops champagne
16:05:18 <Sukhdev> This was a long road - and, I am glad we finally made it
16:05:46 <Sukhdev> devananda TheJulia : thanks for the last push
16:06:14 <Sukhdev> I believe nova mid-cycle is this week and jroll is attending it
16:06:17 <devananda> Sukhdev: you're quite welcome. thanks for your patience with us!
16:06:28 <devananda> that's correct. I will be attending too.
16:07:11 <Sukhdev> devananda : we have couple of nova patches, if you could try to secure an exception for the merge
16:08:04 <devananda> Sukhdev: these two? https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+branch:master+topic:bp/ironic-networks-support
16:08:26 <Sukhdev> devananda : yes
16:08:39 <devananda> Sukhdev: one of them appears to depend on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/332177/ which hasn't merged yet
16:09:28 <devananda> oh - maybe that's an old / obsolete version of that patch?
16:10:47 <Sukhdev> I think the port groups stuff still needs some attention
16:11:06 <Sukhdev> that is on my list of agenda item (next)
16:11:21 <Sukhdev> #topic: Remaining work items
16:12:01 <Sukhdev> I spent some time over the weekend to go over all the remaining items - and put the list on agenda
16:12:23 <Sukhdev> 1) Port Groups - do we want to get them in Neuton?
16:12:49 <Sukhdev> devananda : the patch you pointed out (along with one of nova) patches belongs to this category
16:13:09 <devananda> I see
16:13:39 <Sukhdev> 2) Inspector related work - again, do we want this in Neuton as well?
16:14:01 <Sukhdev> One of the patches merged and one is left - see LLDP patch by sambets
16:14:31 <Sukhdev> 3) Nova patches - already mentioned - one belongs to portgroups
16:15:19 <Sukhdev> 4) Vlan aware Servers - we have a spec and neutron is working on the implementation for VMs - which we plan to leverage
16:15:30 <Sukhdev> this probably will move to next release cycle
16:15:51 <Sukhdev> 5) Security Groups for Bare metal -
16:16:14 <Sukhdev> I have RFE out - I can get this done within next week or so -
16:16:33 <Sukhdev> this can make in Neuton
16:16:49 <Sukhdev> 6) devstack patches
16:17:08 <Sukhdev> I notice few are merged, but, few are not - perhaps old/stale ones
16:17:37 <Sukhdev> Can anybody think of any other work item?
16:17:46 <devananda> Sukhdev: I'd like to ask folks to take a little time and abandon any old patches today
16:17:57 <devananda> that will make it clearer when I'm sitting down with the Nova team
16:18:01 <Sukhdev> devananda : +1
16:18:18 <mjturek1> in regards to nova side portgroups - so sam has a note about the portgroups patch, that we need to pass the portgroup info in that format to the network_data.json file in metadata.
16:18:37 <mjturek1> format is here http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/liberty/implemented/metadata-service-network-info.html#rest-api-impact
16:18:57 <mjturek1> O
16:19:21 <mjturek1> I'm not quite sure where the bond_mode, bond_xmit_hash_poilcy, and bond_miimon are supposed to come from
16:19:27 <mjturek1> the extra field of the portgroup?
16:19:37 <mjturek1> just wondering if anyone had some insight
16:20:42 <Sukhdev> mjturek1 : I think sambets has the details, unfortunately, he is not here today
16:21:02 <mjturek1> ahhh okay, I'd like to help with it. I'll shoot him an email for when he's back
16:21:29 <Sukhdev> good idea
16:22:35 <Sukhdev> So, the question I have for the team is - Do we want to get items 1-3 in Neuton or in O-cycle?
16:22:47 <devananda> Sukhdev: if we need to prioritize, I would like the portgroups and security groups work to get done this cycle
16:23:06 <devananda> and, of course, the necessary nova and/or devstack changes for those
16:23:39 <Sukhdev> devananda : I can get the security groups done for sure
16:23:48 <devananda> does that require any Nova changes?
16:24:01 <Sukhdev> devananda : no
16:24:05 <devananda> great :)
16:24:22 <Sukhdev> most of the work is in Neutron and ML2 drivers - which I have already
16:24:41 <Sukhdev> one patch is needed in Ironic - I have been waiting for the base code to get merged
16:25:09 <Sukhdev> now that it is merged, I can push the patch which will take care of full support for security groups
16:25:18 <Sukhdev> it will at par with VMs
16:25:32 <Sukhdev> - i.e. exactly the same way as it works for VM deployments
16:25:34 <devananda> I am eager to review it :)
16:26:01 <Sukhdev> devananda : within next week or so - will ping you when I push it
16:26:25 <Sukhdev> that leads to port groups -
16:26:39 <Sukhdev> this needs work on both Ironic side as well nova
16:26:54 <devananda> it looks like this patch is related to portgroups and needs work: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/332177/
16:27:18 <Sukhdev> right -
16:27:31 <devananda> and it's pretty big :(
16:27:47 <mjturek1> devananda: think it should be broken up at all?
16:28:15 <TheJulia> smaller chunks would easier to review
16:28:33 <devananda> on principle alone, yes. a 2k LOC patch is much harder to review than a series of smaller ones
16:30:01 <devananda> it also needs to be updated
16:30:15 <Sukhdev> So, if we want port groups in Neuton - the work is needed on both fronts - nova and ironic
16:30:53 <mjturek1> I'll volunteer for rebasing and breaking up the patch unless vdrok would like to
16:30:56 <Sukhdev> devananda : without ironic work merged, I wonder how much luck will you have with nova folks :-)
16:31:29 <Sukhdev> mjturek1 - thanks for help
16:31:33 <mjturek1> np
16:31:34 <devananda> Sukhdev: yea, I'm concerned about that too
16:31:49 <devananda> mjturek1: thanks!
16:33:01 <Sukhdev> devananda : when you are at nova sprint - perhaps you can get the feelers :-)
16:34:17 <Sukhdev> As an FYI - I went though the etherpad over the weekend and marked everything which is merged - https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ironic-neutron-mid-cycle
16:34:32 <Sukhdev> look at the devstack patches -
16:35:04 <Sukhdev> 3 merged 4 remaining - I was bit confused about those
16:35:21 <Sukhdev> Anybody has any insight if they are relevant anymore or not?
16:36:42 * devananda revies the 'pad again
16:39:23 <Sukhdev> mjturek1 has a question in the open discussion section - I want to get to it, unless anybody wants to cover anything else on the agenda?
16:39:28 <hshiina> I guess these are current devstack-related patches. https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:im_devstack_01
16:40:40 <Sukhdev> hshiina : thanks - so, looks like the list on the etherpad is stale - I will update it
16:41:03 <hshiina> Sukhdev, you're welcome
16:41:10 <Sukhdev> looks like we are in good shape for devstack then
16:42:44 <mjturek1> Sukhdev: yep, I noticed one thing when I was trying out portgroups
16:43:35 <mjturek1> you could have the same MAC address as a portgroup and a port. I could be wrong, but I would think uniqueness should be enforced between the two resources
16:44:08 <Sukhdev> mjturek1 : so, we are jumping to open discussion - let me change the topic
16:44:15 <Sukhdev> #topic: Open Discussion
16:44:17 <mjturek1> Sukhdev: ahh sorry :)
16:44:32 <devananda> mjturek1: I thought we wanted to allow that because a PortGroup may inherit the MAC of one of the Ports ?
16:44:39 <Sukhdev> mjturek1 : so, we had this discussion in the past - but, never closed off on it officially
16:45:09 <mjturek1> ah
16:46:11 <Sukhdev> mjturek1 : one of the things we discussed in the past is that port group could inherit the MAC address of the port (one with lower mac address) - as devananda pointed out
16:46:32 <mjturek1> if a portgroup inherits a MAC then it would still be valid for a port to exist with that MAC?
16:47:10 <Sukhdev> that port will be part of the port-group though
16:47:45 <mjturek1> ahhh gotcha
16:48:08 <Sukhdev> otherwise, you could not have two ports with the same mac address
16:48:23 <mjturek1> right right
16:49:29 <mjturek1> yeah I think that answers my concern
16:49:39 <mjturek1> if I think of a situation where it wouldn't, I'll let you know
16:50:27 <Sukhdev> mjturek1 : cool -
16:50:31 <mjturek1> thanks
16:50:36 <Sukhdev> Anything else?
16:50:49 <Sukhdev> Anybody has anything else to discuss?
16:51:12 <Sukhdev> Looks like we are done -
16:51:38 <Sukhdev> Thanks everybody -
16:51:46 <mjturek1> thanks! ttyl
16:51:49 <Sukhdev> devananda : good luck with nova sprint
16:51:53 <devananda> thanks!
16:51:56 <Sukhdev> bye
16:52:00 <hshiina> thanks
16:52:03 <Sukhdev> #endmeeting