18:00:10 <rtheis> #startmeeting networking_ovn
18:00:11 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Sep  8 18:00:10 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is rtheis. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:00:12 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
18:00:14 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'networking_ovn'
18:00:19 <Sam-I-Am> mmm, official
18:00:25 <rtheis> Hi
18:00:28 <russellb> i was about to ask, first topic, which meeting topic to use
18:00:29 <abalutoiu> Hello
18:00:33 <russellb> could have also been lazy and used "ovn"
18:00:50 <Sam-I-Am> networking-ovn makes sense
18:00:51 <zhouhan> Hello!
18:00:54 <russellb> hi!
18:00:54 <Sam-I-Am> since thats the project name
18:00:58 <russellb> yep, it's fine
18:01:04 <rtheis> yeah, I think networking_ovn was in the meetings patch
18:01:07 <Sam-I-Am> but it needs to be consistent for people looking at logs
18:01:16 <russellb> rtheis: cool, sounds good.
18:01:17 <rtheis> welcome to the first official meeting
18:01:23 <russellb> thanks for setting it up, rtheis
18:01:29 <russellb> we've outgrown the main OVN meeting at this point
18:01:44 <rtheis> yw
18:02:04 <russellb> rtheis: have an agenda in mind?
18:02:04 <rtheis> #topic Announcements
18:02:11 <rtheis> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/networking-ovn-meeting
18:02:27 <rtheis> I've placed the proposed agenda here
18:02:35 <russellb> nice.
18:02:42 <rtheis> The Newton-3 deliverable was released
18:02:48 <rtheis> #link https://github.com/openstack/releases/commit/93d18e485ad2043df9a793dc2a6cd580d999bd0d
18:03:04 <rtheis> next week is Newton RC1
18:03:16 <rtheis> #link https://releases.openstack.org/newton/schedule.html
18:03:38 <rtheis> I am planning to propose a patch for Newton RC1 next week
18:04:13 <russellb> should we merge all feature freeze exceptions by then?
18:04:34 <rtheis> That's what I'd like to discuss
18:04:49 <rtheis> We have several bug fixes and a lot of features in the review queue
18:05:09 <rtheis> and would like opinions how what to let into Newton RC1
18:05:26 <russellb> as much as possible?  :)
18:05:37 <zhouhan> sounds good :)
18:05:47 <russellb> prioritizing makes sense though
18:05:57 <rtheis> yeah
18:06:06 <rtheis> any other announcement before we move on ?
18:06:27 <rtheis> #topic Bugs for Newton RC1
18:06:28 <russellb> i mentioned this in the main OVN meeting, but TripleO support is now all merged
18:06:43 <rtheis> nice
18:07:07 <Sam-I-Am> are we going to provide distro-package install instructions anywhere?
18:07:10 <Sam-I-Am> speaking of rh
18:07:15 <Sam-I-Am> i dont know if ubuntu is packaging ovn
18:07:22 <russellb> Sam-I-Am: we'll have TripleO docs at some point
18:07:31 <russellb> our general install guide mentions packages that are available
18:07:40 <Sam-I-Am> have they been tested?
18:07:42 <russellb> i would hope that all distros start turning on the OVN sub-package in OVS 2.6
18:07:50 <russellb> the packaging work was done long ago
18:07:53 <Sam-I-Am> it would be nice to make sure that stuff works
18:07:59 <russellb> might have to ping the ubuntu ovs package maintainer though
18:08:01 <russellb> not sure who that is
18:08:21 <Sam-I-Am> probably the openstack packagers
18:08:31 <Sam-I-Am> at least thats how its been for the cloud-archive stuff
18:09:02 <rtheis> any work on the networking-ovn side that we need to track for this?
18:09:12 <rtheis> bug for RC1?
18:09:17 <russellb> ubuntu needs to package networking-ovn
18:09:24 <russellb> if anyone wants to chase that ...
18:10:00 <Sam-I-Am> i suppose i can poke at that
18:10:03 <russellb> it's already packaged for centos / rdo
18:10:05 <Sam-I-Am> i know people
18:10:09 <russellb> cool.
18:10:12 <rtheis> thanks Sam-I-Am
18:10:20 <Sam-I-Am> not that they're terribly responsive... but we shall see
18:10:36 <rtheis> anything else on packaging?
18:10:43 <Sam-I-Am> having package options for both rdo and ubuntu makes sense for our docs
18:10:48 <Sam-I-Am> since we more or less have two camps
18:11:17 <rtheis> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/networking-ovn/+bug/1514488
18:11:18 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1514488 in networking-ovn "Make use of the native OVN DHCPv4" [High,Fix released] - Assigned to Numan Siddique (numansiddique)
18:11:46 <rtheis> We have several fixes related to native DHCP support listed in agenda
18:12:00 <rtheis> I think we should try targeting them for RC1
18:12:29 <Sam-I-Am> lets just not release anything thats broken :)
18:12:47 <rtheis> +1
18:12:49 <russellb> numan is on vacation for 3 weeks
18:12:54 <flaviof> rtheis: is there a reason why the Vagrant in OVN (networking-ovn) is not using the native DHCP? Maybe metadata issues?
18:12:57 <russellb> who wrote that originally, so we'll have to proceed on those fixes without him
18:13:12 <rtheis> Zong Kia has picked up a couple
18:13:31 <rtheis> flaviof: just haven't made the switch yet
18:13:48 <russellb> probably just that not everyone uses the vagrant setup
18:13:53 <Sam-I-Am> conventional md doesnt work at all with native dhcp?
18:14:03 <rtheis> no
18:14:10 <flaviof> ack. so it is just not a known issue, but yet not fully tested then.
18:14:25 <Sam-I-Am> thus, i'd say native dhcp is not ready.
18:14:36 <flaviof> understood.
18:14:47 <Sam-I-Am> people expect basic features to work
18:15:06 <Sam-I-Am> so perhaps native dhcp is still 'experimental' and not a default?
18:15:08 <rtheis> config drive is the alternative which does work
18:15:23 <rtheis> with the native services
18:15:30 <Sam-I-Am> it is, but not everyone uses it
18:16:48 <flaviof> just to be clear, I'm talking about https://review.openstack.org/#/c/350237/7/vagrant/provisioning/setup-compute.sh -- line 36
18:17:03 <rtheis> the metadata limitation and other limitations for native services are documented in the release note
18:17:37 <rtheis> #link http://docs.openstack.org/releasenotes/networking-ovn/unreleased.html
18:18:13 <flaviof> make sense. all good.
18:18:33 <rtheis> flaviof: the vagrant setup was setting up both native and conventional dhcp
18:18:49 <rtheis> I fixed it to go back to conventional dhcp
18:18:55 <flaviof> heh, ic; that is defininitely bad
18:18:57 <rtheis> just haven't got back to switching it to native
18:19:20 <rtheis> since there was documentation and other things to do
18:19:49 <rtheis> any other concerns with native DHCP fixes ?
18:20:33 <Sam-I-Am> looks like ubuntu is including a networking-ovn package
18:20:34 <flaviof> none from me; thank y'all for taking the cycles to educate me on config-drive
18:20:41 <russellb> Sam-I-Am: great!  thanks for checking.
18:20:48 <Sam-I-Am> but i'm not sure if they're depending on a useful ovs version or kernel
18:20:53 <Sam-I-Am> so whether it works or not remains to be seen
18:21:12 <rtheis> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/networking-ovn/+bug/1611963
18:21:13 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1611963 in networking-ovn "OVN NB sync ignores ACLs on lswitch without ports" [Undecided,In progress] - Assigned to Richard Theis (rtheis)
18:21:21 <rtheis> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/networking-ovn/+bug/1612435
18:21:22 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1612435 in networking-ovn "ML2 driver doesn't retry post_fork_initialize ovn nb or sb connection failures" [Undecided,In progress] - Assigned to Richard Theis (rtheis)
18:21:41 <rtheis> there are a couple miscellaneous fixes for these bugs
18:21:58 <rtheis> sync and connection retry
18:22:08 <rtheis> any concerns with targeting RC1 ?
18:22:48 <rtheis> also ...
18:22:50 <rtheis> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/358501/
18:23:46 <rtheis> #topic Feature Freeze Exceptions (FFEs) for Newton RC1
18:24:01 <rtheis> We have 7 listed in the agenda
18:24:31 <rtheis> This is a lot of new function potentially coming in late to the release
18:24:52 <rtheis> are there any features that should be blocked?
18:25:34 <rtheis> or maybe we focus on which feature is the highest priority and work down from there
18:25:43 <russellb> i think we should prioritize
18:25:52 <russellb> one of my top priorities would be https://review.openstack.org/#/c/346646/
18:25:58 <russellb> is chandra working on the test failure?
18:26:13 <russellb> next for me would be vlan-aware-vms
18:26:14 <rtheis> yes
18:26:35 <rtheis> I believe chandra has an ovn patch dependency
18:26:43 <russellb> ah, i see
18:26:52 <rtheis> which what I think he brought up in ovn meeting
18:26:53 <russellb> maybe that's the patch he mentioned in the ovn meeting
18:26:55 <russellb> got it.
18:26:57 <rtheis> yeah
18:28:03 <rtheis> anyone else have opinions on priority ?
18:28:36 <zhouhan> Is race condition a concern?
18:29:06 <rtheis> zhouhan: is that for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/358447/ ?
18:29:08 <zhouhan> I am working on the patch but not sure about priority
18:31:15 <rtheis> priority may depend on how easy it is to recreate the race conditions in production
18:31:15 <azbiswas> What about the idl mutate patch: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/351861/
18:31:19 <russellb> zhouhan: i feel like that might be too invasive for this release
18:31:22 <zhouhan_> I think I just got dropped
18:31:35 <rtheis> I tend to agree with russellb
18:32:14 <russellb> ovs mutate -- what perf improvement do we get?
18:32:29 <russellb> measured that?  just curious
18:32:51 <rtheis> https://bugs.launchpad.net/networking-ovn/+bug/1610347/comments/2
18:32:53 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1610347 in networking-ovn "OVS transaction timeout with many logical switch ports on a logical switch" [Undecided,In progress] - Assigned to Richard Theis (rtheis)
18:33:14 <azbiswas> That's a question, I don't have an answer to yet - our internal cloud where we going to test this out has been having stability issues lately
18:33:27 <russellb> rtheis: nice, thanks
18:33:29 <rtheis> I noted this improvement in a local environment
18:33:30 <azbiswas> We did get past our initial problem point.
18:34:23 <zhouhan_> russellb: well, it is not that invasive as I thought in the beginning. I didn't change the sync call behavior, not like the journal mechanism in ODL
18:34:43 <russellb> zhouhan_: oh ok, interesting
18:35:00 <zhouhan_> rtheis: and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/362494/
18:35:19 <rtheis> zhouhan_ thx
18:35:58 <zhouhan_> It is POC so I'd like to get feedback if that is a good way to continue
18:36:21 <rtheis> zhouhan_: the tests aren't passing on these 2 patches yet...  do you think we give them more time for reviews and testing and possibly backport if not to invasive?
18:37:05 <zhouhan_> rtheis: yes, I am fixing the failure and added some functional tests for race conditions
18:37:12 <rtheis> ack
18:37:24 <zhouhan_> It is not quite urgent though. we know that, race conditions ...
18:37:44 <rtheis> so our priority so far is ...
18:37:47 <rtheis> (1) NAT support (SNAT, FloatingIP)
18:37:54 <rtheis> (2) OVN trunk driver to support vlan-aware-vms
18:38:03 <rtheis> (3) Add OVS transaction mutate support
18:38:21 <russellb> (4) multi-provider / multi-segment
18:39:25 <zhouhan_> should 3) be higher than 2)?
18:39:32 <ramamurthy> @rtheis: is vlan-aware VMs the way to provide services ?
18:39:55 <rtheis> ramamurthy: I haven't looked at that patch yet
18:39:58 <rtheis> russellb ?
18:40:20 <zhouhan_> For my understanding 3) is about scalability and performance, but not sure if it really solves the problem
18:41:17 <russellb> swapping 2 and 3 is fine with me
18:41:24 <russellb> i actually want both :)
18:41:27 <russellb> so whichever :)
18:41:56 <russellb> i'd rather defer the metadata one, i think ...
18:42:26 <rtheis> zhouhan_: it did seem to solve the problem for the use case reported
18:42:36 <rtheis> which problem did it not solve?
18:43:00 <zhouhan_> rtheis: that's great. I didn't test, so not sure
18:43:06 <rtheis> ack
18:43:34 <rtheis> if we defer metadata then we have  ...
18:43:43 <rtheis> Support a mixed DPDK and non-DPDK environment
18:43:51 <rtheis> Support native OVN DHCPv6
18:43:56 <rtheis> leve
18:43:57 <rtheis> left
18:44:00 <russellb> DPDK one is pretty small
18:44:08 <russellb> so gets my +1
18:44:20 <rtheis> sounds good
18:44:25 <flaviof> is anyone here actively involved with SFC (specifically, SFC with OVN) ?
18:44:39 <russellb> and of course, would love DHCPv6 too, but looked like there was still work needed?
18:44:48 <russellb> i'd say (5) dpdk, (6) dhcpv6
18:44:58 <russellb> and then try to merge all 6 :)
18:45:09 <rtheis> awesome :)
18:45:25 <rtheis> Zong Kai picked up DHCPv6 while numan is out
18:45:31 <russellb> great
18:45:34 <rtheis> we'll see how far he gets
18:45:48 <russellb> i'm on vacation all next week ... and technically in meetings today and tomorrow
18:45:50 <Sam-I-Am> how well does ipv6 work in general?
18:45:51 <russellb> but will do as much as i can
18:47:07 <Sam-I-Am> mighty quiet :)
18:47:37 <rtheis> russellb: is ovn ipv6 support ready ?
18:47:51 <russellb> yes
18:47:56 <russellb> sorry in meeting room
18:48:06 <rtheis> np
18:48:13 <russellb> IPv6 support is merged in OVN for L3 routing
18:48:20 <russellb> there are improvements still to be made
18:48:30 <rtheis> ok
18:48:53 <rtheis> so we have a list of 1-6, with metadata (7) deferred
18:49:00 <russellb> like, i don't think we're doing router advertisements?
18:49:13 <russellb> for our logical routers, i mean
18:50:23 <Sam-I-Am> thats sort of a problem
18:50:24 <rtheis> anything else for Newton RC1 that we want/need to complete?
18:51:28 <russellb> all the things
18:51:40 <russellb> rtheis: thanks for organizing the agenda
18:51:51 <rtheis> you're welcome
18:51:56 <rtheis> last topic ...
18:51:58 <rtheis> #topic Open Discussion
18:52:10 <rtheis> anything else for today ?
18:52:14 <flaviof> is anyone here actively involved with SFC (specifically, SFC with OVN) ?
18:52:24 <rtheis> I am not
18:52:28 <russellb> i've monitored it somewhat, not too up to date
18:52:34 <russellb> ryan was commenting a bunch a while back
18:52:42 <russellb> there is a networking-sfc spec i was asked to review in the last couple weeks
18:53:00 <russellb> but the main issue with it is it makes assumptions / proposals for the SFC support in OVN itself, which really needs to get done first
18:53:02 <rtheis> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/333172/
18:53:15 <flaviof> ack. thanks!
18:53:28 <russellb> i haven't seen a proposal for OVN itself in a while
18:53:33 <russellb> or at all?  lots of discussion
18:53:55 <russellb> but i'd like to see a specific design proposal
18:53:57 <flaviof> yeah, I'm catching up on all that was talked about in the ML
18:54:45 <flaviof> rtheis: thanks for the link!
18:54:49 <rtheis> yw
18:55:07 <ramamurthy> the ovn discussion didnt focus on specific usecases
18:55:12 <ramamurthy> for SFC
18:55:59 <azbiswas> Ryan mentioned something about it being single tenant only - but I've not looked into it
18:56:07 <flaviof> right. there is the open topic on multi-tenants, as an example. let me educate myself more on that b4 I start making my usual stupid questions :)
18:56:45 <rtheis> any other topics for today? we have a couple minutes left.
18:57:22 <azbiswas> chandrav: I know you just joined, your SNAT/FIP patch was voted as top priority for review :)
18:57:34 <russellb> let's plan an OVN meetup in Barcelona for whoever is there
18:57:34 <russellb> another related event for this group: OVSCon details were just sent out
18:57:34 <russellb> accepting talk proposals now
18:57:38 <russellb> i still don't understand the single vs multi tenant concern
18:57:56 <chandrav> azbiswas: Thats good to know :)
18:58:01 <russellb> yep, just needs tests to pass
18:58:03 <russellb> then let's get it in
18:58:09 <rtheis> OVN meetup sounds good
18:58:13 <russellb> chandrav: you need an OVN patch in first?
18:58:14 <rtheis> thanks chandrav
18:58:17 <flaviof> russellb: tbh I don't either, I'm just repeating what I heard on that as a parrot at this point
18:58:36 <chandrav> for the tests to pass, i'll point to my ovs branch
18:58:38 <rtheis> chandrav: do you have a link to the patch ?
18:59:13 <chandrav> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/665301/
18:59:23 <rtheis> #link https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/665301/
18:59:24 <rtheis> thanks
18:59:26 <zhouhan_> russellb: sorry that I may not go to Barcelona, you guys have fun
18:59:43 <chandrav> I am having difficulty writing a unit test case for that patch.
18:59:44 <russellb> zhouhan_: how about ovscon?
18:59:49 <russellb> at least that one is in your back yard :)
19:00:03 <zhouhan_> russellb: I hope I can join that one :)
19:00:11 <flaviof> zhouhan_: +1
19:00:24 <rtheis> we are out of time, thank you all for attending
19:00:34 <zhouhan_> thanks guys, bye
19:00:36 <rtheis> ##endmeeting
19:00:41 <rtheis> #endmeeting