16:01:34 <Sukhdev> #startmeeting networking_ml2
16:01:34 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Feb  3 16:01:34 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is Sukhdev. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:01:35 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:01:37 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'networking_ml2'
16:02:08 <Sukhdev> #topic: Agenda
16:02:15 <Sukhdev> #link: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/ML2#Meeting_February_3.2C_2016
16:02:32 <Sukhdev> #topic: Announcements
16:02:49 <Sukhdev> Anybody has any announcement to make?
16:03:24 <rkukura> Summit CFP deadline was a few hours ago - anyone know when voting starts?
16:04:08 <Sukhdev> I do not know when the voting starts -
16:04:38 <Sukhdev> probably in a week or so
16:05:23 <Sukhdev> If you have submission where you like us to vote, lets know
16:05:44 <Sukhdev> Lets dive into the agenda
16:05:54 <rkukura> I submitted one called “Understanding ML2 Port Binding” that may be of interest to this group, so keep an eye out for it!
16:06:35 <Sukhdev> rkukura : very appropriate topic -
16:06:56 <scheuran__> rkukura, sure - this is also something I'm interested in :)
16:07:01 <Sukhdev> actually many people do not understand it
16:07:16 <Sukhdev> so, it will be a good topic to cover
16:07:37 <rkukura> it also needs to be documented, so I’m hoping the material for the talk can be turned into a start of a document on it
16:08:44 <Sukhdev> I think you should prepare the material anyway - regardless of the talk being approved or not - it will be a great service :-):-)
16:09:23 <Sukhdev> #topic: limited-portsec implementation
16:09:32 <Sukhdev> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/250036/
16:09:48 <Sukhdev> I see this is getting good attention
16:10:08 <Sukhdev> do we need to discuss anything here?
16:11:25 <Sukhdev> yalei is not here
16:12:15 <Sukhdev> based upon the number of comments on the patch, it seems to be in good shape =
16:12:41 <Sukhdev> if anybody has anything else it is better to put it in the review itself
16:13:05 <Sukhdev> #topic: Modular L2 Agent update
16:13:20 <Sukhdev> scheuran__ : want to chime in?
16:13:26 <scheuran__> sure
16:13:33 <scheuran__> the major patchset merged last week
16:13:45 <Sukhdev> congratulations!!!
16:13:49 <scheuran__> now there is the one missing that moves the code into a separate file...
16:14:26 <scheuran__> regarding macvtap integration I pushed the first patchsets
16:14:58 <Sukhdev> can you post the link?
16:14:58 <scheuran__> but currently there is a discussion on the rfe going on regarding anti spoofing support in macvtap
16:15:13 <scheuran__> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:macvtap_agent
16:15:38 <scheuran__> seems like this support is very restricted - so we need to understand the details first...
16:16:26 <Sukhdev> makes sense
16:16:28 <scheuran__> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1480979
16:16:30 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1480979 in neutron "[RFE] Adding macvtap ml2 driver and agent" [Wishlist,In progress] - Assigned to Andreas Scheuring (andreas-scheuring)
16:16:41 <scheuran__> that's it :)
16:17:33 <Sukhdev> scheuran__ : hats off to you - that is some good work
16:18:05 <scheuran__> thanks! I hope it will continue ;)
16:18:43 <Sukhdev> anybody has any questions/comments for scheuran__ ?
16:20:32 <Sukhdev> #topic: Routed networks
16:20:47 <Sukhdev> #link: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/225384/
16:20:53 <neiljerram> hi
16:21:10 <Sukhdev> neiljerram: hi
16:21:32 <Sukhdev> So, I reviewed this patch and posted some comments on this
16:22:49 <rkukura> I still owe a review on this
16:22:49 <Sukhdev> this patch addresses use case for larger deployments -
16:23:21 <Sukhdev> rkukura : you should - this will tie into HPB
16:23:25 <neiljerram> I'm afraid I'm still behind on detailed review of the latest draft.  Sorry for that.  It means I haven't seen your comments yet.
16:23:49 <neiljerram> HPB?
16:24:16 <neiljerram> Oh, just worked it out.
16:24:25 <neiljerram> (Hierarchical port binding)
16:24:40 <rkukura> right
16:24:42 <Sukhdev> yup
16:25:28 <neiljerram> Well it sounds like we should continue in Gerrit. Your input is very much appreciated.
16:25:52 <rkukura> neiljerram: Is this still targetted at Mitaka?
16:25:58 <Sukhdev> In a nut shell it provides similar functionality as HPB, but, by using L3 underlay instead of overlay (e.g. VxLAN) networks
16:26:31 <neiljerram> rkukura, formally I'm not sure what the current metadata says. But realistically I think that unfeasible
16:27:22 <rkukura> Sukhdev: They are different ways to scale, but I’m not sure its really similar to HPB. We do need to make sure they don’t interfere with each other
16:28:06 <Sukhdev> rkukura : correct - my comments are related to that - to make sure they do not break HPB
16:28:30 <neiljerram> rkukura, On the other hand, I think Carl might say that he'd really like the _spec_ to be agreed by Mitaka.  Otherwise the discussion might continue for ever.
16:29:00 <neiljerram> rkukura, But I very much doubt that the code will be in place by Mitaka.
16:29:08 <rkukura> I will try to review this ASAP. Agree getting the spec approved now makes sense, even if the implementation won’t make M
16:30:15 <Sukhdev> This concept was discussed in one of the neutron mid-cycles - we did extensive white-board discussion on this topic
16:31:04 <Sukhdev> few vendors who want this implemented were present in the room to describe the problem/use-case
16:31:25 <Sukhdev> this is essentially to address the scale
16:31:32 <Sukhdev> works very much like HPB -
16:31:46 <Sukhdev> In fact, I presented HPB in the same meeting -
16:32:40 <Sukhdev> they want to be able to dynamically build L2 segments and inter-connect them via L3 routers
16:33:13 <Sukhdev> as oppose to HPB where one would inter-connect them by using overlay network
16:33:39 <Sukhdev> instead of using L2 overlay on top of L3, they directly want to use L3
16:34:10 <Sukhdev> this allows them flexibility in IP address assignments
16:35:49 <Sukhdev> similar to HPB, when nova schedules a VM on a hypervisor, it will assign the host_id and will ignore the IP address for the port
16:36:21 <Sukhdev> later neutron will bind the L2 segment to the host and assign a segment and IP address
16:37:12 <rkukura> Sukhdev: Does the spec describe how this deferred IP assignment will be implemented?
16:37:40 <Sukhdev> I think some of the information is there - but, this part still needs to be worked out
16:37:50 <Sukhdev> there is lots of TODO
16:39:41 <Sukhdev> the idea is they want to be able to assign the IP address to the segments as they are build (based upon the placements) as oppose to statically at the time of subnet creation
16:40:32 <Sukhdev> this does change some of basic constructs of neutron
16:41:05 <Sukhdev> rkukura : In one of my comments, I even mentioned your name - i.e. check with rkurura :-):-)
16:41:14 <Sukhdev> so, hopefully, they will pull you in :-)
16:41:26 <rkukura> The most significant is that networks are no longer L2 broadcast domains, right?
16:41:50 <Sukhdev> correct
16:42:12 <Sukhdev> I think we can have more productive discussion about it once everybody has reviewed the spec
16:42:24 <rkukura> Sukhdev: agreed
16:42:47 <Sukhdev> neiljerram : would you like to add anything?
16:43:10 <rkukura> So HPB is a way to scale while preserving L2 adjacency for networks, while routed networks is a way to scale while giving that up
16:43:32 <Sukhdev> rkukura : yes
16:43:41 <neiljerram> nothing at this time, thanks.  I will look at your comments on the review.
16:44:32 <Sukhdev> in fact, there is a new knob being added called l2_adjacency which will be set to true/false to support old/new model
16:45:50 <Sukhdev> sounds good
16:46:01 <Sukhdev> anything else on this?
16:46:22 <Sukhdev> #topic: Open Discussion
16:47:47 <Sukhdev> any body wants to discuss anything?
16:48:41 <Sukhdev> silence means we are done :-):-)
16:49:07 <Sukhdev> Thanks folks - it was a good discussion
16:49:18 <Sukhdev> will see you same place next week
16:49:26 <Sukhdev> have a great rest of the week
16:49:32 <Sukhdev> bye
16:49:34 <rkukura> thanks Sukhdev!
16:49:34 <scheuran__> bye
16:49:38 <Sukhdev> #endmeeting