20:00:17 <sdake> #startmeeting kolla
20:00:19 <openstack> Meeting started Mon Nov 24 20:00:17 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is sdake. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:00:20 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
20:00:22 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'kolla'
20:00:23 <sdake> #topic rollcall
20:00:27 <sdake> hi folks \o/ !
20:00:27 <rhallisey> hi
20:00:27 <daneyon> here
20:00:36 <jpeeler> hey
20:00:56 <sdake> larsks around?
20:01:03 <larsks> Yup!
20:01:07 <sdake> cool
20:01:13 <sdake> #topic milestone #2 - release today
20:01:38 <sdake> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/kolla/milestone-2
20:01:56 <sdake> looking over that list, we hve 2 in code review, 2 not started, 1 nearing code review
20:02:13 <sdake> kube-trove-container will that make milestone #2?
20:02:20 <sdake> I wseem to recall rhallisey indicating it was busted upstream
20:02:24 <rhallisey> sdake, ya
20:02:33 <sdake> ya its busted or ya i twill make i t? :)
20:02:42 <rhallisey> it's busted
20:02:56 <daneyon> what is busted?
20:03:22 <rhallisey> I talked to the guy who is writing a plugin for packstack
20:03:39 <rhallisey> he is hardly able to deploy
20:03:52 <larsks> rhallisey: a plugin for packstack to do what?
20:03:55 <rhallisey> mostly because it is in a bad state
20:03:58 <larsks> for trove?
20:04:01 <sdake> i think in this case we should trust but verify - eg in the next cycle milestone #3, try to write our own version
20:04:02 <rhallisey> for trove
20:04:04 <larsks> got it.
20:04:05 <rhallisey> sorry
20:04:25 <sdake> maybe it doesn't work well for packstack but would work well for kolla
20:04:43 <sdake> sounds good rhallisey? I have pushed it to milestone #3 then
20:04:44 <rhallisey> it's not that packstack/puppet is the problem
20:04:54 <rhallisey> he was saying that there was no one working on it
20:05:06 <sdake> trove has no upstream?
20:05:08 <rhallisey> and he was hitting bugs from trove every step of the way
20:05:31 <rhallisey> sdake, I believe it does, but I think the participation is lacking
20:05:44 <sdake> ok well thats a bit of a problem for openstack in general
20:05:46 <sdake> lets do this
20:05:50 <sdake> lets try to make it work for milestone #3
20:05:52 <sdake> if it doesn't work
20:05:56 <rhallisey> sdake, sure
20:05:58 <sdake> lets blast the ML with the problems
20:06:05 <sdake> along with bug reports
20:06:19 <sdake> can't expect the trove upstream to mindread their way into fixing t he bugs without being told what they are :)
20:06:28 <sdake> neutron - daneyon I saw your patch, but it needs a rebase
20:06:33 <rhallisey> sdake, agreed :)
20:06:50 <daneyon> sdake: correct. I need to rebase neutron and nova-network patches. i will do that later today.
20:07:00 <sdake> cool
20:07:01 <rhallisey> I also need to rebase
20:07:11 <daneyon> larsks: both patches require the heat-kube PR i submitted.
20:07:12 <sdake> horizon is in "needs code review" but I didn't see the patch in the review queue
20:07:29 <larsks> sdake: I got nothin'.  I'm not sure why the bp has that status.
20:07:30 <daneyon> larsks: let me know if you need me to make any changes to the kube-heat PR to get it accpeted.
20:07:52 <larsks> daneyon: i will try to revisit that today.  i've been focused on non-kolla things for the past week.
20:07:52 <rhallisey> sdake, 'Horizon container implementation'
20:07:57 <larsks> daneyon: sorry!
20:08:04 <rhallisey> sdake, not there for you?
20:08:10 <daneyon> larsks: no worries at all. i know the feeling.
20:08:14 <sdake> rhallisey do you ahve a link?
20:08:22 <rhallisey> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/135773/
20:08:33 <sdake> cool that leaves swift and sahara
20:08:36 <sdake> sahara should be done today
20:08:46 <sdake> i've also been locked into working on magnum for the last week to get things rolling there
20:09:00 <sdake> so haven't spent much time on containrizations :)
20:09:00 <rhallisey> nice
20:09:17 <sdake> cool thing about a magnum implementation is then we have an easy pat hto tripelo integration
20:09:37 <sdake> so given that we are all in the "need couiple more days to finish"
20:09:41 <daneyon> all, it may be a good idea for others to review my hat-kube PR and provide feedback or just be aware of the changes #link https://github.com/larsks/heat-kubernetes/pull/8
20:09:42 <sdake> and thanksgiving is thursday/friday
20:09:51 <sdake> should we jsut shoot for wednesday for a release?
20:10:04 <sdake> wed Nev 26th
20:10:10 <sdake> that provides 2 days
20:10:24 <sdake> to sort out the pR,s rebases, etc
20:10:36 <daneyon> +1
20:10:56 <rhallisey> sounds good
20:10:59 * larsks abstains
20:11:02 <sdake> cool
20:11:08 <sdake> larsks can you sort ou tt hat PR for daneyon by then?
20:11:11 <sdake> I think he is blocked on that
20:11:24 <daneyon> or does a release just before the break loose its wow factor???
20:11:26 <larsks> See my comment above @ 15:07:51
20:11:49 <larsks> I think with the break nobody is going to be looking at a new release...
20:12:06 <jpeeler> yeah agreed on waiting until after the break
20:12:15 <sdake> Dec 2nd it is then
20:12:18 <rhallisey> that's true
20:12:32 <daneyon> then that gives us the whole break to do more work... not.
20:12:48 <sdake> I'd just like to get what is in the blueprint queue done by edec 2 ;)
20:12:58 <daneyon> agreed
20:13:06 <sdake> #topic open items
20:13:11 <sdake> so normally I'd discuss milestone #3
20:13:17 <sdake> but lets wait until our next meeting to see where that stands
20:13:20 <sdake> given that christmas is coming up
20:13:22 <sdake> anjd the new year
20:13:29 <sdake> i think dec will be a pretty light month for us
20:13:35 <sdake> downside of starting a project in november :)
20:13:44 <sdake> normally IS tart in april, but it had to be done when it had to be done :)
20:14:07 <sdake> any open discussion folks woould like to have?
20:14:40 <daneyon> nope, lets just get ML2 knocked out.
20:14:43 <larsks> I have one item...
20:14:55 <sdake> larsks is on deck fire away
20:15:24 <larsks> The "flannel" project now has a vxlan backend.  I want to look at that as a replacement for my own hacked up thing in the heat templates.
20:15:42 <larsks> Not directly kolla related, I guess, but I wanted to mention it.
20:15:49 <sdake> cool
20:15:50 <larsks> It looks like the atomic folks are going to go with flannel, too.
20:15:51 <sdake> sounds handy
20:16:04 <larsks> (For kubernetes networking)
20:16:30 <daneyon> then i also need to make sure the docker-spotter stuff used for multi-interface networking works w/flannel too.
20:17:06 <larsks> daneyon: I will ping you before I move anything into master.
20:17:13 <sdake> sounds like flannel might be a solid bp for milestone #3
20:17:43 <daneyon> larsks: i assume flannel does not have a docker multi-interface solution. Do you know???
20:17:56 <sdake> larsks if you are upt o it, might consider filing a blueprint against m3 for it so folks know who is doing what
20:18:01 <larsks> daneyon: no, it does effectively the same thing I was doing with linkmanager
20:18:08 <larsks> (but using the kernel vxlan module rather than OVS)
20:18:16 <larsks> sdake: I will do that.
20:18:22 <sdake> thanks larsks
20:18:30 <daneyon> +1 for using kernel over OVS
20:19:03 <daneyon> larsks: wouldn't it be easy to mod linkmanager to do the same though?
20:19:27 <larsks> daneyon: well, maybe, but I would rather use a project like flannel with actual maintainers and use beyond our little corner of the woods...
20:19:39 <daneyon> +1 to that
20:20:20 <daneyon> what about trying to get a better solution in k8s?
20:20:48 <daneyon> any discussion about using linkmanager as a basis for multi-host networking in k8s?
20:21:13 <daneyon> it seems linkmanager is very much inline with the k8s vxlan stuff.
20:21:50 <larsks> daneyon: I'm not sure that linkmanager is really any different from flannel in terms of functionality (other than being less well written).
20:22:03 <daneyon> #link https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/kubernetes/blob/master/docs/ovs-networking.md
20:22:09 <larsks> Hold on, let me find a docker issue that is interesting to this...
20:22:33 <larsks> Okay:
20:22:51 <larsks> Read through this to see where docker is thinking of going in terms of more flexible networking support...
20:22:53 <larsks> https://github.com/docker/docker/pull/8216
20:23:14 <larsks> I will bet that any kube changes are going to wait on that.
20:23:26 <larsks> ("That" meaning "the whole question of docker networking getting resolved").
20:23:35 <larsks> #link https://github.com/docker/docker/pull/8216
20:23:37 <larsks> There.
20:23:58 <daneyon> i'm all over the different docker proposals for networking that have surfaced over the last 2 weeks, including the one you mention. it appears the 8216 pull is hitting a dead end with shykes.
20:24:24 <larsks> daneyon: Right. But the discussion there re: the future of networking (e.g., the use of docker plugins) is I think the relevant part.
20:24:59 <larsks> The vxlan link @ https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/kubernetes/blob/master/docs/ovs-networking.md is pretty much what I used as a reference when writing linkmanager :)
20:25:05 <daneyon> docker is getting ready to make some changes to networking using a plugin model and possible add default networking using OVS or kernel vxlan + add'l tools
20:25:24 <larsks> That's what the vagrant setup does...but using flannel gets you to approximately the same place, other than the kernel/ovs difference.
20:26:07 <daneyon> with all that is going on with docker networking, what is the k8s team doing? It would be good for them to incorporate something like linkmanager.
20:26:55 <larsks> I don't know.  The k8s upstream folks seem focused largely on integration with GCE, in which these solutions are not necessary.  But I have not followed any upstream discussions around this point...
20:27:27 <daneyon> since k8s is a big part of what we're doing (at least for the time being, I just want to make sure what ever networking change we decide is consistent with the direction of the k8s project.
20:27:46 <sdake> daneyon that makes sense
20:27:59 <sdake> on that ponit and magnum, it apperas magnum may end up being a wrapper around k8s
20:28:11 <larsks> sdake: \o/
20:28:13 <sdake> so what is good for k8s is good for magnum from what I can tell
20:28:20 <daneyon> i would like to see step 1 that we create a proposal PR with the k8s repo.
20:28:57 <daneyon> that suggests using a tool (either flannel or a form of linkmanager) to support their ovs/vxlan networking use case.
20:29:13 <larsks> daneyon: not linkmanager.
20:29:18 <larsks> daneyon: no no no no
20:29:19 <daneyon> I think it's important that we have an open discussion with the k8s team to understand where k8s networking is going.
20:29:20 <larsks> :)
20:30:03 <daneyon> I'm fine with going flannel, just want to avoid making another change in direction in weeks or months if the k8s team is headed in a diff direction.
20:30:04 <sdake> open discussion
20:30:09 * sdake tears flesh from bones
20:30:14 <daneyon> haha
20:31:04 <daneyon> does it make sense to open a proposal PR with k8s team similar to the model Docker has created?
20:31:15 <larsks> daneyon: similar to which model?
20:31:49 <daneyon> let me find the link, but Docker has started to put together some steps for submitting proposals to the docker project.
20:33:13 <daneyon> this allows us to create a PR with the title Proposal: XYZ Networking and our ideas to expand multi-host k8s networking using flannel. If they disagree, then it gives us an indication that they are headed in a diff direction.
20:33:54 <daneyon> docker proposal #link https://github.com/docker/docker/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#design-and-cleanup-proposals
20:34:04 <larsks> daneyon: I think that is in general a good idea, but I guess I would start just by asking on the mailing list if there are already existing plans in that direction.
20:35:01 <daneyon> sounds like a good first step. do you want me to do that or you?
20:36:39 * sdake votes daneyon as the sacrifial lamb since your the networking guru here :)
20:36:45 <larsks> I don't have a strong preference...how about you do it, and I will comment.
20:36:52 <sdake> you can actually have a conversation back and forth :)
20:36:55 <daneyon> will do
20:37:02 <larsks> daneyon: Cc: me on the post...
20:37:17 <daneyon> will do
20:37:34 <sdake> cool well I thin kwe bea tthe networking future into the ground, is there any other open topics folks would like to discuss?
20:37:45 <larsks> I'm all out.
20:38:14 <daneyon> are you ok if i ask the question on the google-containers irc channel?
20:38:59 <sdake> \wfm
20:39:04 <sdake> irc is good too
20:39:07 <larsks> daneyon: I would slightly prefer the ml, if they have one.
20:39:17 <sdake> ya ml is good - but they use google groups iirc
20:39:26 <larsks> Eh, whatever.  Ask on IRC :)
20:39:37 <daneyon> OK, I'll start there.
20:39:40 <daneyon> IRC
20:40:06 <sdake> cool any o ther open topics?
20:40:17 <sdake> if not, i'll end the meeting in 60 seconds :)
20:40:49 <sdake> #endmeeting