16:04:28 <rkukura> #startmeeting networking_ml2
16:04:28 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Jul  1 16:04:28 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is rkukura. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:04:30 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:04:32 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'networking_ml2'
16:04:45 <rkukura> #topic Agenda
16:04:55 <rkukura> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/ML2#Meeting_July_1.2C_2015
16:05:23 <rkukura> Would anyone like to add anything to today’s agenda?
16:05:47 <rkukura> #topic Announcements
16:06:03 * rkukura doesn’t have any announcements - does anyone else?
16:07:01 <rkukura> #topic Action Items
16:07:32 <rkukura> I started an eitherpad on the ML2 coding sprint, which we’ll get to in the later in the agenda
16:07:53 <rkukura> banix: Any update on the modular agent proposal?
16:08:18 <banix> i sent the email out
16:08:26 <banix> the response was overall positive
16:08:49 <banix> with Kyle saying its probably late for this cycle but there were support for the work
16:09:18 <banix> sean opened an rfe
16:09:23 <banix> sean collins
16:09:41 <banix> but there hasnt been much discussion there last i checked
16:10:07 <rkukura> banix: Thanks! Is an incremental approach possible?
16:10:43 <banix> rkukura: that’s what is being suggested. have to take a fresh look again
16:10:59 <yamamoto> banix: did you looked at agent extension manager stuff?
16:11:23 <banix> yamamoto:  no i haven’t
16:12:00 <yamamoto> it seems like a step to similar direction
16:12:21 <Sukhdev> yamamoto: any link?
16:12:41 <yamamoto> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/195439/
16:12:54 <yamamoto> and its parent/child patches
16:14:34 <rkukura> silly MacOS just killed all my apps trying to install updates :(
16:14:39 <rkukura> #chairs Sukhdev
16:14:59 <Sukhdev> rkukura: Opps -
16:15:22 <Sukhdev> yamamoto: Thanks for the link
16:15:29 <rkukura> Was able to cancel colloquy from shutting down, so I think I’m OK
16:15:57 <Sukhdev> yamamoto: did a quick browsing - looks interesting
16:16:06 <Sukhdev> #chairs rkukura
16:16:12 <Sukhdev> rkukura: back to you
16:16:15 <rkukura> OK
16:16:34 <rkukura> Sukhdev: Just wanted to make sure you could take over if I dropped out
16:16:47 <Sukhdev> rkukura: sure I will
16:16:53 <Sukhdev> no worries
16:17:05 <rkukura> Should we continue to track/discuss modular agent on the ML2 meeting agendas going forward?
16:17:48 <Sukhdev> I think so - banix ?
16:18:17 <banix> Sukhdev: sure; i hope to catch up this weekend
16:18:31 <rkukura> OK
16:19:03 <rkukura> I don’t see asomya or shivharis
16:19:21 <rkukura> They have an action regarding physical topology
16:20:04 <rkukura> We’ll get back to that next week
16:20:08 <Sukhdev> rkukura: in the last meeting asoumya mentioned they will be ready for phisical topology work in ML2 sprint
16:20:18 <Sukhdev> I wonder if that is still the case
16:20:39 <rkukura> Sukhdev: good question - lets get back to that later in the agenda
16:20:58 <rkukura> #topic Neutron Mid-cycle sprint recap
16:21:21 <rkukura> I tried but couldn’t make this, but I know Sukhdev did
16:21:44 <Sukhdev> Yes - I attended for two days
16:21:47 <rkukura> Sukhdev: Can you summarize what happened there regarding ML2?
16:22:05 <Sukhdev> I went there for the ML2 plugin decomposition effort
16:22:35 <Sukhdev> We discussed about it - and I asked my favorite question - i.e. ROI for the effort
16:22:55 <Sukhdev> i.e. why do we want to do it and what do gain out of it, etc.
16:23:12 <Sukhdev> and I also raised concern that we may end up breaking lots of things
16:23:41 <Sukhdev> folks agreed that there was a possibility of lots of breakages - so, we decided to take two phase approach
16:24:10 <Sukhdev> Phase 1 - is to keep everything in the tree, but, move everything into separate directories
16:24:31 <Sukhdev> we decided to call Phase 1 as pre-decomposition phase
16:24:53 <Sukhdev> we wanted to make sure nothing smokes with code restructure
16:25:23 <Sukhdev> if all works well with phase 1, then we will decide with phase - 2 - i.e. actually move all the restructured code out
16:25:33 <Sukhdev> or we may decide not to do phase 2
16:25:42 <Sukhdev> so, all the effort was on phase 1
16:25:59 <Sukhdev> Kyle was working on the spec for phase 1
16:26:25 <Sukhdev> BTW, this means all the L2 agents as well as core plugin
16:26:35 <Sukhdev> That is all about this
16:26:44 <rkukura> Would phase 1 have any impact on patches under development or in review, other than needing to rebase? It seems phase 2 would be an issue for these, but not phase 1.
16:27:06 <Sukhdev> rkukura: correct
16:28:40 <rkukura> anything else from the neutron mid-cycle? Were any others there?
16:29:00 <Sukhdev> there were bunch of people -
16:29:37 <Sukhdev> see here - https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/neutron-liberty-mid-cycle
16:30:17 <rkukura> Do you see ML2 impact from any of the other efforts?
16:31:54 <rkukura> Sukhdev: How about “get me a network” and “routed networks”?
16:32:00 <Sukhdev> not really - there are two specs
16:32:27 <rkukura> Sounds like this sprint involved more planning than coding
16:32:29 <Sukhdev> yes - those two may have some impact - but, I do not believe there will be anything significant -
16:32:50 <Sukhdev> most likely, they will use Core plugin as opposed to making too many changes to it
16:33:12 <rkukura> Is there still concensus that mid-cycle coding sprints are productive?
16:33:52 <Sukhdev> I believe they are :-)
16:34:17 <rkukura> Thanks Sukhdev! Anything else on the neutron mid-cycle before we move on to the ML2 mid-cycle?
16:34:39 <Sukhdev> at the end of second day mestery did a round table about the achievements - everybody seem to believe it was very productve
16:35:13 <Sukhdev> lets move on
16:35:26 <rkukura> #topic ML2 Mid-cycle Sprint
16:36:01 <rkukura> I started an etherpad for this at https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/Neutron_ML2_Mid-Cycle_Sprint
16:36:32 <rkukura> It looks like July 13 and 14 is possible, or else early September
16:36:56 <rkukura> If we are going to do July, we need to finallize this right away so people can arrange travel
16:37:39 <Sukhdev> rkukura: july 13 is week after next
16:37:50 <rkukura> I still don’t see asomya, and he was one of the people planning to travel for it
16:38:07 <Sukhdev> I can do it - but. for travelers it may be a short notice
16:38:47 <rkukura> Week after next is getting kind of tight. I have the OK to do it, but would want to book it today before heading out for a bit of PTO.
16:38:59 <Sukhdev> I have not seen anything on physical topology
16:39:31 <Sukhdev> asoumya wanted to add it to the sprint
16:40:10 <Sukhdev> I lined up a guy at Arista who could help as well - but. we need a firm plan
16:41:05 <Sukhdev> rkukura: if we did it in sept, it gives everybody more time to regroup
16:41:43 <Sukhdev> considering this is a short week, most people are on PTO - hence, asoumya and shivharis missing as well :-)
16:41:55 <rkukura> Sukhdev: Agreed, but it also makes it less likely to get significant patches into liberty.
16:42:32 <Sukhdev> rkukura: correct - we risk pushing it to M-cycle
16:42:48 <rkukura> Maybe we can make significant progress between now and September, and finish up then?
16:43:13 <Sukhdev> rkukura: I think we can push the RFE now and get the approval for it
16:43:37 <Sukhdev> manishg: are you here?
16:43:57 <rkukura> Sukhdev: It sounds like your preference would be to do the mid-cycle in September.
16:43:58 <mestery> Just a note that doign it in September is really late-cycle, and we'll be in feature freeze then.
16:44:16 <mestery> FYI in case that affects what you're planning on working on
16:44:25 <rkukura> mestery: Agreed
16:44:41 <Sukhdev> mestery: thanks - good point
16:45:13 <Sukhdev> rkukura: I am OK with july 13 as well - but, folks are not here to finalize -
16:46:14 <manishg> sorry got disconnected for a couple of minutes...
16:46:29 <Sukhdev> manishg: ah ha - was looking for you :-)
16:46:39 <rkukura> manishg: We are debating 7/13 vs September for the sprint
16:47:15 <manishg> yeah, I saw that discussion.  anything is fine with me.
16:47:45 <rkukura> Ignoring the topology effort for the moment, is there anyone who would really want to participate on the synchronization efforts, but can’t be in San Jose 7/13 and 7/14?
16:47:46 <Sukhdev> manishg: will you be able make arrangements to host on july 13th?
16:47:55 <manishg> looks like asoumya hasn't responded and he wanted to be part of it (based on your previous comment).  right?
16:48:23 <manishg> Sukhdev: yes I can make the arrangements.  if it's not too tight for folks.  looks like it might be tight for rkukura ...
16:49:08 <rkukura> kevinbenton: From your mail, looks like you’d attend but 6/13 could be problematic. Are you here?
16:49:19 <rkukura> I mean 7/13 of course
16:51:19 <rkukura> OK, looks like 7/13 and 7/14 are a possibility. Anyone who is interested in participating, please update the etherpad.
16:51:42 <rkukura> We can continue via email among those planning to attend.
16:51:53 <manishg> rkukura: sounds good.
16:52:02 <rkukura> #topic Discussion on binding_profile_type to facilitate filtering of Ironic ports or using device_owner
16:52:19 <rkukura> Sukhdev: go ahead
16:52:27 <Sukhdev> thanks
16:52:33 <kevinbenton> rkukura: hey
16:52:40 <kevinbenton> rkukura: 7/13?
16:52:48 <Sukhdev> So, as you know we are working on Ironic/neutron integration
16:53:08 <Sukhdev> kevinbenton rkukura : I will let you finish that conversation
16:53:13 <rkukura> kevinbenton: Are you in the San Jose area and available 7/13 and 7/14?
16:53:25 <manishg> kevinbenton: rkukura was asking if you can make it on 7/13, 7/14 for ml2 sprint (at yahoo office in sunnyvale)
16:53:29 <kevinbenton> rkukura: sorry, i can't make 7/13 because i'm flying to montana for two weeks on 7/10
16:54:08 <rkukura> Lets continue trying to schedule that via email, and let Sukhdev discuss his topic
16:54:15 <manishg> kevinbenton: would sept. be preferable to you (and would like to push this out => you want to attent)?
16:54:18 <Sukhdev> rkukura: thanks
16:54:25 <kevinbenton> rkukura: sounds good, sorry for interupting Sukhdev!
16:54:31 <manishg> rkukura: ok, let's proceed via email.
16:54:47 <Sukhdev> so, continuing - there is a requirement from the neutron/ML2 side to be able to filter on Ironic ports
16:55:02 <Sukhdev> we had considered few possibilities -
16:55:32 <Sukhdev> using "host" field in the ml2-biniding
16:55:44 <Sukhdev> we also considered using device_owner:
16:56:10 <rkukura> Using device_owner kind of makes sense to me
16:56:13 <Sukhdev> currently nova sets it to "compute:<zone>" - we considered using it to say "compute:ironic"
16:56:27 <kevinbenton> Sukhdev: the issue is that binding:profile is a json blob in the db so it can't be filtered?
16:56:31 <Sukhdev> but, that sound problematic
16:56:50 <Sukhdev> kevinbenton:correct - hence, we are looking for possible solutions
16:57:19 <kevinbenton> Sukhdev: ack, what is the issue with using a different device owner?
16:57:19 <Sukhdev> kevinbenton rkukura : so, one possibility is to create a new field under ml2_port_binding
16:57:54 <Sukhdev> and call it something like binding_profile_type and set it to "ironic"
16:58:10 <Sukhdev> kevinbenton: the way Nova uses the zones - there may be a conflict
16:58:15 <rkukura> Would setting device_owner to something like “compute/ironic:<zone>” be any less problematic?
16:58:54 <Sukhdev> nova has no notion of ironic or virt stuff
16:58:59 <Sukhdev> it is all compute to nova
16:59:26 <Sukhdev> there is absolutely no distinction in mova - it is all compute (BM or VM)
16:59:43 <rkukura> Sukhdev: I wouldn’t rule out the binding_profile_type idea, but I kind of think of the binding:profile as being open-ended, able to hold different kinds of info, so a single type might be constraining
17:00:40 <Sukhdev> rkukura: the idea is to use binding-profile for the blob of info, but, have a separate field to say that this binding-profile is of type Ironic
17:00:42 <kevinbenton> we could also manually filter in ML2 as a temporary workaround
17:01:16 <rkukura> Sukhdev: There is also a binding:vnic_type attirubute that might make some sense to flag ironic
17:01:20 <Sukhdev> kevinbenton: yes, but, it will be better to have  cleaner solution if possibel
17:01:45 <Sukhdev> rkukura: I looked at that field - it is used by vmware only
17:02:12 <rkukura> In a sense, ironic is a special VNIC type in that its not a virtual NIC, but a physical NIC
17:02:21 <Sukhdev> rkukura: but, was not sure who else might be using - so, thought if we added a new field, there will be no conflicts -
17:02:39 <rkukura> The ML2 plugin implements binding:vnic_type and triggers rebinding if its changed. I think SR-IOV uses it.
17:02:45 <Sukhdev> rkukura: so, you think that will be a good idea?
17:02:54 <rkukura> We are overtime
17:03:20 <Sukhdev> rkukura kevinbenton : can you switch to the neutron channel to finish this discussion
17:03:40 <rkukura> Sukhdev: I think you should consider binding:vnic_type for this. But we need to finish up for the next meeting.
17:03:55 <rkukura> Anything else before we wrap up?
17:04:04 <Sukhdev> rkukura: yes, lets move over to neutron channel, please
17:04:15 <Sukhdev> free up this channel
17:04:15 <rkukura> Thanks everyone!
17:04:17 <rkukura> #endmeeting