18:02:13 <SumitNaiksatam> #startmeeting networking_policy
18:02:14 <s3wong> SumitNaiksatam: hello
18:02:15 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Oct 23 18:02:13 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is SumitNaiksatam. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:02:16 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
18:02:18 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'networking_policy'
18:02:45 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Specs in review
18:03:03 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:stackforge/group-based-policy-specs+branch:master,n,z
18:03:10 <rkukura> hi
18:03:24 <SumitNaiksatam> the service chaining spec was reviewed and merged earlier in the week
18:03:44 <SumitNaiksatam> i am behin on updating #link https://review.openstack.org/127913
18:04:05 <SumitNaiksatam> happy to answer questions on that here, though
18:04:38 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: are we still targeting #link https://review.openstack.org/128000 for juno-gbp-2?
18:05:13 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: Its possible - was just checking on where I was on that
18:05:33 <rkukura> When is juno-gbp-2?
18:05:57 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: the original target is tomorrow :-)
18:06:16 <rkukura> when is juno-gbp-3?
18:06:26 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: but i think we will have to make some exceptions, since we have been a little behind on the reviews
18:06:42 <rkukura> There is a chance I’ll have code in review Monday
18:06:59 <rkukura> So lets see where we are then.
18:07:09 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: juno-gbp-2 was aligned so that the release would be ready before the Paris Summit
18:07:50 <rkukura> Does anyone plan to implement and extension driver for juno-gbp-2 if it is available?
18:07:57 <rkukura> s/and/an/
18:08:01 <ivar-lazzaro> I would say that it's a bit late to merge this before Paris?
18:08:01 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: we need to stock of where we are with juno-gbp-2 and determine how we want to move forward with the branching (if we want to go directly to kilo-gbp or do a juno-gbp-n)
18:08:21 <ivar-lazzaro> rkukura: that would be useful for me, but I've already posted a GBP APIC patch without the extension
18:08:37 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: ivar-lazzaro: thats a good point, we might not have enough cycles to incorporate this into a driver
18:08:42 <rkukura> I thought our plan was to continue to iterate based on juno, and start supporting kilo in parallel at some point
18:08:46 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: befor the paris summit that is
18:08:59 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: yes, that is definitely up for discussion
18:09:07 <ivar-lazzaro> rkukura: I would say that changing the implementation would be not doable unless the patch gets merged before this WE
18:09:56 <ivar-lazzaro> rkukura SumitNaiksatam: yeah I definitively would love to see this for Juno, but I would not rush things for Paris at this point
18:10:02 <rkukura> ivar-lazzaro: lets see where we are on this tomorrow
18:10:15 <SumitNaiksatam> nothing stopping us from approving this spec if there are no objections
18:10:32 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: sure, I'll fire the +A if we all agree
18:10:40 <SumitNaiksatam> worst case we can just carry over the spec if we dont have the cycles to implement right away
18:10:50 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: no objections from me
18:10:51 <rkukura> comments are reasonable but I don’t think they require updates
18:11:18 <SumitNaiksatam> i wanted to do a quick read, but would not want to hold up the merge
18:11:45 <s3wong> SumitNaiksatam, rkukura, ivar-lazzaro: with RMD-SG merged this morning, we should be at where we wanted to be at for Juno (code-wise and functionality wise, at least on the server side), right?
18:11:50 <rkukura> the alternatives listed are only partial, but I think they are stil worth mentioning
18:11:52 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: go ahead, I think the implementation can be sent in review even if the spec is not fully approved
18:12:21 <SumitNaiksatam> s3wong: we will get to the implementation shortly
18:12:25 <ivar-lazzaro> s3wong: I would say that we miss hierarchical contracts at least
18:12:40 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: you have #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/129490/
18:12:43 <s3wong> ivar-lazzaro: hmm... true
18:12:58 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: s3wong: if you dont mind, lets first discuss the specs
18:13:03 <ivar-lazzaro> Also I was wondering, where are the other drivers' implementation? I think OneConvergence had one?
18:13:28 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: good point, hemanthravi ^^^
18:13:51 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: are you planning to post the spec that was earlier posted and approved in neutron?
18:13:56 <hemanthravi> SumitNaiksatam, will post our driver in the next 1-2 days
18:14:05 <hemanthravi> for the driver, yes
18:14:11 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: would need the spec as well
18:14:19 <hemanthravi> will do
18:14:25 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: thanks
18:14:37 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: regarding the HEAT-related spec
18:14:51 <hemanthravi> yes, need a review on that one
18:15:18 <SumitNaiksatam> so for the benefit of everyone, what are we proposing, and what are we reviewing here?
18:15:49 <hemanthravi> this is the same as what was posted in neutron earlier, heat support for all GBP resources
18:16:01 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: did you post a APIC driver spec, or did i completely miss it?
18:16:25 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: no I didn't, and honestly I don't find it atm :)
18:16:38 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: not sure if Neutron dumped those specs
18:16:43 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: oh
18:17:08 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: okay we will sync up on that offline
18:17:14 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: yep
18:17:33 <s3wong> SumitNaiksatam: I got regXbo's consent to take over the ODL piece, but it probably won't make gbp-juno
18:17:56 <SumitNaiksatam> s3wong: thats nice, and no worries
18:18:10 <SumitNaiksatam> s3wong: as long as we have an owner
18:18:20 <SumitNaiksatam> s3wong: can you post the spec?
18:18:38 <s3wong> SumitNaiksatam: yes, will do that before tomorrow (ODL status meeting)
18:18:48 <SumitNaiksatam> s3wong: thanks
18:19:11 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: so the changes in your spec https://review.openstack.org/#/c/129490 are targeted at Heat, right?
18:19:29 <hemanthravi> SumitNaiksatam, yes need a review :)
18:20:05 <SumitNaiksatam> i am just wondering how we can clarify that this is a Heat related change, not clear right now
18:21:04 <SumitNaiksatam> perhaps we should create launchpad projects in the respective projects (so https://launchpad.net/group-based-policy-automation in this case)
18:21:37 <SumitNaiksatam> that way you can link your gerrit spec to the bp in that LP project
18:22:21 <SumitNaiksatam> so essentially i am saying, move: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/group-based-policy/+spec/group-based-policy-automation to https://blueprints.launchpad.net/group-based-policy-automation/+spec/group-based-policy-automation
18:22:58 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: make sense?
18:23:29 <hemanthravi> SumitNaiksatam, can do that if the current loc doesn't work
18:24:28 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: yeah, i think we will need to do that
18:24:40 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: since this is not a server side spec
18:25:07 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: sorry for the process overhead
18:25:39 <hemanthravi> ok, will catch up with later today and get this done
18:25:49 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: thanks much!
18:26:02 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: is #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/127380/ on hold?
18:26:39 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: just waiting for more reviews, this item is also after-Paris though
18:26:47 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: okay got it
18:26:50 <SumitNaiksatam> LouisF: hi
18:26:51 <s3wong> ivar-lazzaro, SumitNaiksatam: I can review that too
18:26:59 <LouisF> SumitNaiksatam: hi
18:27:01 <ivar-lazzaro> s3wong: thanks
18:27:05 <SumitNaiksatam> LouisF: which spec patch should we be reviewing?
18:27:26 <LouisF> SumitNaiksatam: I will update the specs
18:27:33 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: FYI: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/130615/
18:28:04 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: ah that was fast, at the speed of ACI! :-)
18:28:29 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: ahah :)
18:28:58 <SumitNaiksatam> LouisF: so all the separate patches are basically one spec, right?
18:29:12 <LouisF> SumitNaiksatam: yes
18:29:56 <SumitNaiksatam> ok moving on to the implementation patches
18:30:14 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:stackforge/group-based-policy+branch:master,n,z
18:30:45 <SumitNaiksatam> the great news is that GPM-RMD-SG #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/124941 was merged earlier today
18:30:56 <ivar-lazzaro> yeey
18:31:11 <SumitNaiksatam> thanks rkukura for the reviews, and ivar-lazzaro for the quick responses, great work!
18:31:48 <s3wong> It certainly had undergone quite a few changes since I posted it on Neutron; thanks for ivar-lazzaro for picking up this mess :-)
18:32:18 <SumitNaiksatam> the remaining GBP model patches are smaller
18:32:19 <ivar-lazzaro> s3wong: if anything, I made it even messier :D
18:32:34 <rkukura> its a start - plenty more work to do
18:32:38 <SumitNaiksatam> and there are a whole series of service chaining patches
18:33:07 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: there are two sets of patches
18:33:54 <hemanthravi> SumitNaiksatam, what do you mean
18:36:14 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: so there are patches posted by Subra and there are patches posted by Magesh
18:36:46 <hemanthravi> sumit magesh rebased them to make it a liner dependency
18:36:49 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: Subra’s initial patch #link https://review.openstack.org/127038 is marked WIP
18:36:51 <hemanthravi> those are the right patches
18:37:16 <hemanthravi> will check with subra and abandon the earlier ones
18:37:17 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: ah ok, can you request Subra to abandon his patches?
18:37:34 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: great, will reduce confusion
18:37:50 <hemanthravi> SumitNaiksatam, will do
18:38:22 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: your patch on hierarchical contracts has no core reviewers :-)
18:38:26 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/127364/
18:38:38 <SumitNaiksatam> okay i just added
18:38:50 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: ops :)
18:39:00 <hemanthravi> SumitNaiksatam, the patches in https://docs.google.com/a/oneconvergence.com/spreadsheets/d/1VAcYODD5fA_t2yleb95pTlIxD-btnUllZTN-uhNrsh4/edit?pli=1#gid=0
18:39:10 <LouisF> hemanthravi: so i should review Magesh's patches?
18:39:28 <hemanthravi> LouisF, yes these are posted in the google doc
18:39:29 <hemanthravi> too
18:39:38 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: got it, i should have checked
18:39:39 <hemanthravi> LouisF, thanks
18:40:15 <hemanthravi> SumitNaiksatam, will abandon the duplicate patches to remove the confusion
18:40:16 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: on the service chain patches what is the delta between what is posted here and what was earlier proposed in Neutron?
18:41:15 <hemanthravi> there are some changes related to the support for params requested by the spec
18:41:41 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: okay, that ties into my changes as well
18:41:57 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/129545
18:41:57 <hemanthravi> and the api change for the servicechaininstance to use epg(s)
18:42:05 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: ok
18:42:05 <hemanthravi> or ptg(s) once renamed
18:42:45 <SumitNaiksatam> so #link https://review.openstack.org/129545 implements #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/127913
18:43:14 <SumitNaiksatam> i havent updated that spec patch though
18:43:30 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: thanks for your clarifying comments in response to rkukura’s questions
18:44:12 <SumitNaiksatam> basically, we are introducing a new “network service policy” resource (similar to L2P, L3P; you can call it NSP)
18:44:41 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam:  ;)
18:45:03 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: i knew i had a chance with winning you over with that! ;-)
18:45:23 <s3wong> SumitNaiksatam: sorry that I haven't read the spec --- how does NSP work?
18:45:25 <SumitNaiksatam> this is used to capture policy information that is relevant to the service chain and in the context of an EPG
18:46:06 <SumitNaiksatam> essentially, for every service chain that needs to be realized (or for the service instances that need to be realized in that service chain) certain resources need to be allocated
18:46:27 <SumitNaiksatam> by resources you can think of, say, an IP address for a VIP
18:47:11 <SumitNaiksatam> NSP becomes the place to define the policy for allocating these resources (just like we did in L2P and L3P)
18:47:43 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: did i capture that accurately at least at a high level?
18:48:05 <hemanthravi> SumitNaiksatam, yes
18:48:12 <SumitNaiksatam> s3wong: hopefully answered your question
18:48:46 <s3wong> SumitNaiksatam: still need to look at spec and code... would love to see the level of abstraction to specify service specific resources
18:48:57 <hemanthravi> s3wong, the service-chain-spec request for a list of params and NSP defines how these resources will be allocated bu GBP
18:49:01 <s3wong> SumitNaiksatam: but I understand the intent now
18:49:09 <SumitNaiksatam> s3wong: ok good
18:49:34 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: so you would use the NSP object to instantiate services instead of the service insertion/chaining API?
18:49:35 <s3wong> hemanthravi: interesting... will read more
18:49:44 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: no
18:49:55 <s3wong> ivar-lazzaro: it sounds like GBP will realize the service chain
18:50:00 <hemanthravi> s3wong, interesting in a good way :)
18:50:06 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: the service chain provider/driver would use the NSP when instantiating the service chain
18:50:30 <LouisF> SumitNaiksatam: what patch covers nsp?
18:50:49 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: so the service chain provider knows that it needs a VIP (for example) since the chain has a LB
18:51:22 <s3wong> hemanthravi: keeping service chaining at a high-level (it sounds like it is basically at Heat type level) would also make markmcclain happy :-)
18:51:34 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: Why does the chain provided need to understand the service underneath?
18:51:35 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: however the resource allocation (in terms of IP address for that VIP) should be done by GBP (per our policy-based design philosophy)
18:51:44 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: I need to give a deeper look to those specs :)
18:52:08 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: chain provider always has some understanding of the service underneath
18:52:26 <hemanthravi> s3wong, heat is used for static definitions of the services but some of the dynamic parameters are dependent on the context where the chain is realized
18:52:43 <hemanthravi> s3wong, these are provided via the NSP
18:52:44 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: in this case the understanding is to the extent, that the provider knows that the LB service would need a VIP (perhpas it does not specifically understand what a VIP is)
18:52:52 <s3wong> hemanthravi: cool
18:53:08 <SumitNaiksatam> LouisF: #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/127913 and #link https://review.openstack.org/129545
18:53:18 <LouisF> SumitNaiksatam: thx
18:53:55 <SumitNaiksatam> since we have only a few minutes left, lets shift gears
18:54:00 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: what's the difference between a "VIP" and a simple neutron port? (that is what current LBaaS implementation asks for the VIP)
18:54:16 <LouisF> hemanthravi: can non-openstack services be described by heat?
18:54:23 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: In this context, you can get the allocation by simply having a PolicyTarget
18:54:55 <s3wong> LouisF: I would imagine non-Neutron aware services would NOT be included in this iteration
18:55:18 <LouisF> s3wong: agree but thinking about
18:55:27 <hemanthravi> LouisF, heat can be extended with plugins that can use a ReST API to talk to these services.. I think this should work
18:55:28 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: GBP does not understand what a VIP is, that is not what we are trying to do here
18:55:47 <s3wong> (in any case ... if we are moving to Open Discussion... I have something to ask the team)
18:55:52 <SumitNaiksatam> ok we need to move on to cover the remaining topic
18:56:00 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic GBP Design Summit Session in Paris
18:56:12 <s3wong> SumitNaiksatam: that would do also :-)
18:56:14 <SumitNaiksatam> #link http://kilodesignsummit.sched.org/event/98dc4255384e340682137c8a7ee7e60d
18:56:41 <SumitNaiksatam> so we have an etherpad: #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/kilo-gbp-design-summit-topics
18:56:46 <s3wong> Before I forget.. sarob asked on the ML whether our team (GBP team) would like to collaborate with Congress on some joint workshop / cross-project stuff
18:57:04 <s3wong> what does the team think?
18:57:27 <SumitNaiksatam> s3wong: i think the question was in the context of moving the Congress session
18:57:34 <s3wong> they took the initiative to put their design summit session to the same day as ours
18:58:14 <s3wong> SumitNaiksatam: yes, but at the end of the email, he talked about "Maybe we can get some space in one of the pods or cross-project workshops on Tuesday between the GBP and the potential Congress session to make it even more better"
18:58:56 <SumitNaiksatam> s3wong: yes that would be cool
18:59:02 <SumitNaiksatam> we have one minute
18:59:13 <SumitNaiksatam> so please put your thoughts on the etherpad
18:59:31 <SumitNaiksatam> in terms of what we want to discuss in the design summit session
18:59:44 <SumitNaiksatam> a lot of what we have discussed here will carry forward there
18:59:58 <SumitNaiksatam> we have 45 mins, so we will have to budget accordingly
19:00:04 <SumitNaiksatam> any other parting thoughs?
19:00:04 <s3wong> SumitNaiksatam: we are still going to have a meeting before K-Summit, right?
19:00:11 <SumitNaiksatam> *thoughts
19:00:14 <s3wong> i.e., next Thursday?
19:00:21 <SumitNaiksatam> s3wong: good question
19:00:33 <SumitNaiksatam> s3wong: what does the team think?
19:00:38 <SumitNaiksatam> i am up for it
19:00:51 <SumitNaiksatam> may be we can keep it short - 30 mins as a quick status update
19:00:59 <s3wong> SumitNaiksatam, hemanthravi: we also need to coordinate our presentation before then
19:01:16 <s3wong> (before Paris)
19:01:17 <SumitNaiksatam> s3wong: i have updated the presentation, shared with you
19:01:33 <s3wong> it is on Monday, afterall :-)
19:01:50 <s3wong> SumitNaiksatam: great. Will take a look
19:02:01 <SumitNaiksatam> s3wong:  reviews and finishing the implementation is the first priority ;-)
19:02:15 <s3wong> SumitNaiksatam: +1 :-)
19:02:29 <SumitNaiksatam> okay thanks everyone!
19:02:32 <SumitNaiksatam> bye
19:02:35 <SumitNaiksatam> #endmeeting