16:03:14 #startmeeting networking_ml2 16:03:14 Meeting started Wed Dec 7 16:03:14 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is rkukura. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:03:15 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 16:03:18 The meeting name has been set to 'networking_ml2' 16:03:29 #topic Agenda 16:03:42 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/ML2#Meeting_December_7.2C_2016 16:04:03 same agenda as we’ve been using for a while 16:04:16 Anything to add or remove? 16:04:44 no updates from me 16:05:05 #topic Announcements 16:05:54 Reminder that PTG (Project Teams Gathering) registration is open - around 300 slots remaining 16:06:02 #link http://www.openstack.org/ptg 16:06:27 I already registered 16:06:48 I will be attending 16:06:50 I believe Sukhdev_ said he is going, and I’m likely to go, so its an opportunity to discuss ML2 work 16:07:07 i'm going 16:07:14 great! 16:07:43 Any other announcements? 16:08:18 ok… 16:08:29 #topic Bugs/RFEs 16:09:04 Does andreas_s or brianstajkowski have any update on the nova live migration work? 16:09:19 yes, so the spec is close 16:09:31 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/309416 16:10:07 waiting on our testing in wip patch #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/404293/ 16:10:33 to finalize what we are doing with portbinding and distributedportbinding tables 16:10:46 I reviewed the spec - it looks good 16:10:47 in that same patch we completed the sub resource work, so that's complete 16:11:15 brianstajkowski: Do you mean exposing the bindings as sub resources of the port in the API? 16:11:25 yes 16:11:39 great! 16:11:53 Any issues or concerns to discuss? 16:12:03 in the spec line 638 I made some assumptions on how the activate would work, need some feedback there 16:12:44 mainly trying to figure out a way to make the switchover a bit seemless although there will be slight interruptions in traffic 16:13:12 brianstajkowski: Is this active RPC from the L2 agent, or from nova? 16:13:17 the only way to get around this is for the source migration host to send out a spoofed GARP, while the target migration host is plugging the vif maybe? 16:13:22 yes 16:13:34 nova, this is the activate call 16:13:42 which will trigger an rpc to plug the vif 16:13:55 on the target host and unplug on the source host 16:14:24 Is this a AMQP RPC, or a REST call? 16:14:52 so REST from nova to activate, then this might trigger an AMQP RPC to the source and target to plug unplug their vifs 16:15:20 maybe i'm off base here but just looking for feedback in the spec 16:15:21 OK. I usually think AMQP when I see “RPC” 16:15:31 so do i lol 16:16:30 Originally, the nova/neutron interactions were entirely REST, but we did start using notifications, so I was wondering if AMQP RPCs were now on the table? 16:16:43 not from nova 16:16:54 OK 16:17:00 rest to neutron api, rpc from neutron api to agents etc 16:17:07 OK 16:17:27 Any concerns with this model supporting agentless ML2 mechanism drivers? 16:17:52 in that case possibly, i'll go back on that one 16:19:04 I think this should be OK for agent less drivers 16:19:31 OK, I clearly need to review the current spec before asking too many more questions 16:19:34 as long as these are new calls and old ones are unchanged - this should be fine 16:20:12 ok, good to know, i'll go through it as well, but yes line 638 is the rough area that needs some feedback 16:20:32 anything else on this? 16:20:36 no thank you 16:20:44 thanks brianstajkowski! 16:21:09 Are there any other bugs/RFEs anyone would like to discuss? 16:21:50 #topic Driver API Feature Requests 16:22:38 I don’t see any new developments on https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1583096 16:22:38 Launchpad bug 1583096 in neutron "ml2 supported extensions list is inaccurate" [Medium,Confirmed] 16:23:31 i guess we should start from something simple. 16:25:38 eg. report a set of extensions which all configured drivers support 16:26:20 yamamoto: I think we need to address two categories of extensions - those built into the ML2 core plugin, and those implemented as ML2 extension drivers 16:27:33 Are you suggesting that if an extension built into the ML2 core plugin is not supported by all registered MDs, it should not be enabled in the API (and advertized in the extensions list)? 16:27:49 yes 16:28:11 I’m not sure I would agree 16:28:22 do we have any extension implemented purely in extension driver? 16:29:02 I see the API as advertizing everything that can be done, but port binding determining what actually gets done 16:29:14 Isn’t QoS in an ED? 16:29:57 qos needs notification drivers, which is usually 1:1 with mech drivers 16:30:00 And I know there are 3rd party MDs that have corresponding EDs that implement extensions 16:31:27 for example? 16:33:11 yamamoto: New drivers being developed for Cisco APIC expose the APIC resources to which Neutron resources are mapped via an extension (normally admin-only) 16:34:23 a problem of port-binding time decision is we don't have a good way to report a failure to api users. 16:35:04 And that driver can be used via HPB with other drivers that know nothing about APIC or its extension 16:35:34 interesting. thank you 16:35:47 I suggest we try to have an in-depth discussion of how extensions are advertized and enforced at the PTG 16:36:12 And come up with a plan if we are going to change anything 16:36:20 +1 16:36:36 I think there are several valid but conflicting views on this 16:37:04 lets move on… 16:37:10 sure 16:37:40 There is a patch in review for https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1587401 16:37:40 Launchpad bug 1587401 in neutron "Helper method to change status of port to abnormal state is needed in ml2." [Wishlist,In progress] - Assigned to Trevor McCasland (twm2016) 16:37:52 Its https://review.openstack.org/#/c/336068/ 16:38:27 Looks like no updates in the past month or so 16:39:13 i think the patch itself is fine. multiple MD concern is still valid though. 16:40:07 I see I had one minor comment drafted, but never completed my review 16:41:18 Any other dicussion of driver api feature requests? 16:41:40 if not… 16:41:46 #topic Open Discussion 16:42:05 Any other items to discuss today? 16:42:08 radhikam : are you here? 16:43:01 I guess we are done 16:43:36 rkukura : nothing from me 16:43:38 Sukhdev_: I assume radhikam is the person you said pinged you? 16:43:45 yup 16:43:49 I am here 16:43:57 hi radhikam! 16:44:25 hi rkukura 16:44:28 radhikam : this is the forum to ask any questions you may still have 16:44:43 brianstajkowski, FYI: just commented on your spec 16:45:02 andreas_s : hey stranger!!! 16:45:36 Sukhdev_, hehe 16:46:05 andreas_s : are you going to PTG in Atlanta? 16:46:31 Thanks Sukhdev! I am going over the information you gave me yesterday. Will bring up any questions I have in this meeting next time. 16:46:43 Sukhdev_, no, I'm not planning to attend... 16:46:53 radhikam : sounds good - 16:47:27 Anything else today, or can we wrap up a bit early? 16:47:28 andreas_s : rkukura, yamamoto, and I plan on going - you should come along - we can have detailed ML2 discussions 16:48:30 OK, thanks everyone! 16:48:44 #endmeeting