18:02:55 <SumitNaiksatam> #startmeeting networking_policy
18:02:56 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Jun 11 18:02:55 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is SumitNaiksatam. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:02:58 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
18:03:01 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'networking_policy'
18:03:20 <SumitNaiksatam> #info agenda https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/GroupBasedPolicy#June_4th.2C_11th_2015
18:04:07 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Bugs
18:04:34 <SumitNaiksatam> the list of “high” is growing
18:04:41 <SumitNaiksatam> Ajay__ found some more during the week
18:04:55 <Ajay__> i am yet to file some sumit will do today
18:05:06 <SumitNaiksatam> Ajay__: ok :-)
18:05:09 <Ajay__> external segment ones
18:05:18 <SumitNaiksatam> Ajay__: which ones are currently blocking you?
18:05:26 <Ajay__> external segment one
18:05:30 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/group-based-policy/+bug/1463207
18:05:31 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1463207 in Group Based Policy "Unable to delete external network segment" [High,Confirmed] - Assigned to Ivar Lazzaro (mmaleckk)
18:05:31 <ivar-lazzaro> hi
18:05:32 <Ajay__> where expernal policy update fails
18:05:57 <SumitNaiksatam> Ajay__: did you log a bug for that one?
18:05:57 <Ajay__> sumit_: i need to file that though
18:06:01 <SumitNaiksatam> ah
18:06:09 <SumitNaiksatam> sorry, i was not able to get back to your setup on that one
18:06:22 <Ajay__> sumit_: external policy update and ping failure parts
18:06:43 <SumitNaiksatam> Ajay__: please log it and we will treat it as high priority
18:06:56 <Ajay__> sumit
18:07:04 <Ajay__> will do in next few mins
18:07:14 <SumitNaiksatam> Ajay__: thanks!
18:07:28 <SumitNaiksatam> Ajay__: is this one blocking you #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/group-based-policy/+bug/1462024
18:07:29 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1462024 in Group Based Policy "Concurrent create_policy_target_group call fails" [High,Confirmed] - Assigned to Robert Kukura (rkukura)
18:08:20 <Ajay__> sumit_: not blocking really
18:08:41 <SumitNaiksatam> Ajay__: ok good to know
18:08:51 <Ajay__> this one more : https://bugs.launchpad.net/group-based-policy/+bug/1462149
18:08:52 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1462149 in Group Based Policy "Error while deleting a policy target group" [Undecided,New]
18:08:52 <SumitNaiksatam> thanfully no critical bugs
18:09:18 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: regarding #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/group-based-policy/+bug/1463207
18:09:18 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1463207 in Group Based Policy "Unable to delete external network segment" [High,Confirmed] - Assigned to Ivar Lazzaro (mmaleckk)
18:09:55 <SumitNaiksatam> Ajay__: i tried to reproduce but could not, hence was waiting to triage it
18:09:55 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: I don't think it's related to the implicit workflow, given that the ES has the same UUID as the deleted one
18:09:57 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: yes
18:10:10 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: I'll investigate this
18:10:12 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: i have traced the code through the debugger
18:10:46 <ivar-lazzaro> ok
18:11:06 <SumitNaiksatam> and to the extent i can recollect, the implicit driver goes and reinstates the “default” ES
18:11:25 <SumitNaiksatam> i believe it happens in the post-commit, but it was a while back when i traced it
18:12:00 <SumitNaiksatam> Ajay__: for the update external policy issue, will you be able to post your entire neutron log in paste-bin or something?
18:12:13 <SumitNaiksatam> and link it from launchpad bug?
18:12:43 <Ajay__> sumit: will do i have never done that but will ask around and do it
18:13:03 <SumitNaiksatam> http://paste.openstack.org/
18:13:27 <Ajay__> sumit: thx will do
18:13:32 <SumitNaiksatam> any other bugs that we need to discuss right now?
18:13:39 <Ajay__> not for now
18:13:46 <SumitNaiksatam> okay, anyone else in the team
18:14:03 <SumitNaiksatam> if you think that a bug is a blocker for the the kilo release please flag it in launchpad accordingly
18:14:14 <SumitNaiksatam> and let me know, and I will up the priority to critical
18:14:20 <SumitNaiksatam> and -> or
18:14:24 <Ajay__> sure
18:14:33 <jishnu> hi
18:14:40 <SumitNaiksatam> that request is to the rest of the team as well
18:14:42 <SumitNaiksatam> jishnu: ho
18:14:43 <SumitNaiksatam> hi
18:15:18 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Integration and Rally tests
18:15:30 <SumitNaiksatam> jishnu: joined back at the right time
18:15:41 <SumitNaiksatam> jishnu: question for you - we are adding new features
18:16:00 <SumitNaiksatam> jishnu: how do we augment gbpfunc with tests for these new features?
18:16:43 <SumitNaiksatam> jishnu: there?
18:16:56 <SumitNaiksatam> if it requires more thought we can take it offline
18:17:35 <jishnu> yes .. we need to augment for sure
18:18:07 <SumitNaiksatam> jishnu: since the tests are in a different repo, how do we coordinate that?
18:18:21 <jishnu> @Sumit: need a dump on the new feature .. as you said we can discuss details offline
18:18:33 <SumitNaiksatam> jishnu: ok
18:18:53 <SumitNaiksatam> jishnu: it might also be good if we have a short documentation on how to add new tests to your test suite
18:19:15 <SumitNaiksatam> jishnu: that way we can try to scale the process to the rest of the team
18:19:27 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: ++
18:20:03 <SumitNaiksatam> jishnu: if you are comfortable we can coordinate a one hour session on #openstack-gbp at some time
18:20:06 <jishnu> Yes.. Sumit
18:20:21 <SumitNaiksatam> and you can perhaps give people a quick intro to the suite
18:20:28 <SumitNaiksatam> *test suite
18:20:48 <SumitNaiksatam> jishnu: so let me know accordingly
18:21:25 <SumitNaiksatam> it would be preferable to update the test suite with the new tests, before we can release kilo
18:21:30 <SumitNaiksatam> so lets plan accordingly
18:21:33 <jishnu> Will you be in office in tomorow .. we can do it tomorrow ..
18:21:59 <SumitNaiksatam> jishnu: yes, i meant for the whole team, so we can do IRC or we can do webex
18:22:10 <SumitNaiksatam> jishnu: okay so lets discuss the logistics offline
18:22:15 <SumitNaiksatam> jishnu: thanks
18:22:17 <jishnu> yes
18:22:23 <SumitNaiksatam> Ajay__: over to you for the Rally update
18:22:49 <Ajay__> yes rally managed to integrate the cleanup context as we spoke to clean up resources
18:23:05 <Ajay__> now trying to add tests for external segment/external policy
18:23:12 <Ajay__> and explicit l2/l3 policy
18:23:14 <SumitNaiksatam> Ajay__: thanks for doing that, and thanks for explaining the various pieces involved
18:23:40 <Ajay__> so all i need now is for mandeep to create a fork in noironetworks github
18:23:43 <SumitNaiksatam> per discussion last week, it might not be as easy to just add the rally scenarios to the gbp repo
18:23:58 <Ajay__> for now we can go with a rally fork
18:24:03 <SumitNaiksatam> Ajay__: will get you the repo
18:24:14 <Ajay__> and speak to Boris if he will allow GBP tests  upstream
18:24:25 <SumitNaiksatam> since code changes are required to Rally core itself
18:24:31 <SumitNaiksatam> Ajay__: yes
18:24:39 <Ajay__> yes
18:24:49 <SumitNaiksatam> so for now we will run Rally from Ajay__’s branch
18:25:06 <SumitNaiksatam> Ajay__: so on that, we also need to start a new upstream job for this
18:25:23 <Ajay__> yes we do
18:25:34 <SumitNaiksatam> Ajay__: either you can do that, or we can discuss as to what is needed and i can put the infra patch
18:25:55 <SumitNaiksatam> Ajay__: so first lets find out how we need to set it up (in devstack)
18:25:56 <Ajay__> i need help from you i dont have a jenkins server to use
18:26:13 <SumitNaiksatam> Ajay__: ok lets take this offline (first lets get our code into the repo)
18:26:25 <Ajay__> yes correct
18:26:28 <SumitNaiksatam> any questions for Ajay__ on this?
18:26:41 <SumitNaiksatam> or for Jishnu on the integration tests?
18:27:11 <SumitNaiksatam> Ajay__: thanks for the update
18:27:11 <Ajay__> i presume no
18:27:23 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Packaging update
18:27:41 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: any updates on this front (for fedora/kilo-3)?
18:28:22 <rkukura> No, I haven’t been working on the packaging recently.
18:29:09 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: okay, so we are not planning to do the k3 packages any more?
18:29:36 <rkukura> I’d like to, but am not sure of its priority relative to other work.
18:30:03 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: okay
18:30:16 <SumitNaiksatam> amit does not seem to be around
18:30:34 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Kilo features
18:30:58 <SumitNaiksatam> the udpates to the service chaining refactor specs have been merged: #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174118
18:31:15 <SumitNaiksatam> thanks ivar-lazzaro for the updates and to others for the review
18:31:44 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: :)
18:31:49 <SumitNaiksatam> the initial impl patches also merged yesterday
18:31:56 <SumitNaiksatam> thanks again ivar-lazzaro, awesome work
18:32:03 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: saw your comments post the merge
18:32:16 <SumitNaiksatam> the one on the resrouce counts is very valid
18:32:20 <rkukura> yes - minor possible issues with two of them
18:32:30 <SumitNaiksatam> i believe it gets used for the quota check as well
18:32:35 <ivar-lazzaro> yeah I saw that, I'll post an update soon
18:32:42 <rkukura> ivar-lazzaro: thanks
18:32:43 <SumitNaiksatam> so if its broken we need to fix
18:32:48 <ivar-lazzaro> service target is not a visible object
18:33:00 <ivar-lazzaro> so it's not affected by quota
18:33:13 <ivar-lazzaro> well, it is indirectly since it created a PT
18:33:20 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: i believe there was a comment on the service profile count as well?
18:33:25 <ivar-lazzaro> creates*
18:33:40 <ivar-lazzaro> that comment was about *removing* the count
18:33:47 <ivar-lazzaro> unless I missed something recent
18:34:01 <rkukura> it looked like an existing count function got renamed rather than a new one added
18:34:17 <ivar-lazzaro> rkukura: do you have a pointer?
18:34:50 <SumitNaiksatam> the remaining patches for this work: #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:stackforge/group-based-policy+branch:master+topic:bp/node-centric-chain-plugin,n,z
18:35:12 <rkukura> ivar-lazzaro: line 490 in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/179691/20/gbpservice/neutron/db/servicechain_db.py
18:35:13 <SumitNaiksatam> also there is igordcard’s patch: #link https://review.openstack.org/168733
18:36:18 <ivar-lazzaro> rkukura: ok found it! Good catch
18:36:24 <igordcard> Mine's not yet for review
18:36:30 <SumitNaiksatam> the servicechain instances is not visible to tenant, so its okay to not have, but better to keep it
18:36:34 <ivar-lazzaro> rkukura: not sure how that method was replaced, probably some merge mess I did
18:36:58 <SumitNaiksatam> the method should definitely be renamed in the plural form, since that is the contract
18:36:59 <ivar-lazzaro> rkukura: please file a bug and I'll post a patch asap
18:37:02 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: good catch
18:37:34 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: i would think its okay to post a follow up just a partial impl of the blueprint too, but bug is just as good
18:37:44 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard: okay
18:38:05 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: ok
18:38:25 <SumitNaiksatam> any questions for ivar-lazzaro on this topic?
18:38:52 <SumitNaiksatam> it would have been good to discuss the heat driver that magesh is writing, but i dont think he is here
18:39:13 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: anything you want to discuss regarding the VM driver that you are planning?
18:39:22 <rkukura> not yet
18:39:27 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: okay
18:40:00 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: thanks for the update, and again, amazing work with implementing this feature!
18:40:46 <ivar-lazzaro> thanks!
18:40:51 <SumitNaiksatam> the floating IPs for PTs in a PTG was merged earlier #link https://review.openstack.org/167174
18:41:12 <SumitNaiksatam> the patch was in review for a long time
18:42:17 <SumitNaiksatam> i think rukhsana had questions on #link https://review.openstack.org/179327
18:42:57 <SumitNaiksatam> but i dont see her here
18:43:34 <rkukura> that one needs rebasing again
18:43:54 <rkukura> is the neutron issue resolved?
18:44:03 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: we believe yes
18:44:08 <SumitNaiksatam> the patch was merged
18:44:25 <rkukura> great - I had given this a +2, so should be ablr to quickly re-review
18:44:54 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: okay
18:45:25 <SumitNaiksatam> there was another issue that Ajay__ brought up
18:45:32 <SumitNaiksatam> regarding quota support
18:45:51 <SumitNaiksatam> he was not seeing the Neutron quotas being enforced
18:46:01 <SumitNaiksatam> and i believe the reason is becasue we are making internal calls
18:46:08 <SumitNaiksatam> and hence its not hitting the quota check
18:46:17 <rkukura> that would make sense
18:46:28 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: you also have comments in the RMD as general TODOs
18:47:01 <SumitNaiksatam> so we need to figure out a strategy to get this to work for kilo
18:47:04 <SumitNaiksatam> Ajay__: there?
18:47:12 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: agreed
18:47:19 <Ajay__> yes
18:47:30 <Ajay__> u summarized it
18:47:44 <SumitNaiksatam> Ajay__: so this is an absolute requirement for your use case?
18:48:06 <rukansari> Hi
18:48:07 <SumitNaiksatam> the neutron quota enforcement, that is?
18:48:12 <Ajay__> i would say when you have multiple tenants yes we need some form of enforcement
18:48:14 <SumitNaiksatam> rukansari: hi, just a min
18:48:32 <Ajay__> else any one tenant can exhaust resources
18:48:40 <SumitNaiksatam> Ajay__: we will definitely try to incorporate the GBP quotas (which we dont have today either)
18:49:28 <SumitNaiksatam> Ajay__: i was thinking if it would be enough to enforce at the GBP resouce quota level
18:49:43 <SumitNaiksatam> enough -> acceptable (in this iteration)
18:50:04 <Ajay__> yes that would be good
18:50:10 <SumitNaiksatam> Ajay__: perhaps we can think over it a little more
18:50:45 <Ajay__> i feel the short term check for quota is not really useful for us since we need the long term GBP quota implementation
18:50:45 <SumitNaiksatam> rukansari: you had questions regarding #link https://review.openstack.org/179327
18:50:50 <Ajay__> short term is ok i feel
18:51:05 <SumitNaiksatam> Ajay__: yes, we will implement quota checks for GBP
18:51:18 <SumitNaiksatam> Ajay__: thanks
18:51:21 <SumitNaiksatam> rukansari: go ahead
18:51:31 <SumitNaiksatam> we have 9 mins
18:51:40 <rukansari> ok
18:52:25 <rukansari> The question I have is w.r.t sharing PRS pacth:https://review.openstack.org/#/c/179327/
18:52:34 <rukansari> Will this patch address the requirement:
18:53:00 <rukansari> 1. Need 1 external policy  with 1 external segment for data connectivity to the Internet with its own L3Policy 2. Need another  external policy  with 1 external segment for service management network with its own L3policy
18:54:06 <rukansari> Would a WIP patch that has a very specific usecae for the reqs above be acceptable: i.e remove the validations in:
18:54:06 <rukansari> https://github.com/noironetworks/group-based-policy/blob/master/gbpservice/neutron/services/grouppolicy/drivers/resource_mapping.py#L1116
18:54:49 <ivar-lazzaro> rukansari: you can definitively try
18:55:04 <ivar-lazzaro> rukansari: I'm not sure that removing the validation is the only thing needed
18:55:27 <rukansari> ivar: did try and it seems to satisfy our specific usecase
18:55:34 <ivar-lazzaro> rukansari: but in theory using the remote_sg manager should solve the problem
18:56:05 <SumitNaiksatam> rukansari: no harm in posting a WIP patch, but what would be the final outcome of that patch?
18:56:17 <ivar-lazzaro> rukansari: nice, for a proper upstream fix I would suggest we use the sg_managers validations
18:56:24 <rukansari> ivar: OK. So the SG mgr should be the final solution.
18:56:37 <ivar-lazzaro> rkukura: something on top of it
18:56:41 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: one request - can we document somewhere on teh wiki page as to what are the current constraints of using the ES and the EP (with teh RMD)?
18:56:42 <ivar-lazzaro> rukansari: ^^
18:56:56 <rukansari> ivar: agreed. proper solution is to use SG mgr
18:57:49 <ivar-lazzaro> rukansari: we don't want to break the existing deployments (especially when we backport) so we need to keep the current behavior when people use the remote subnet SG manager
18:58:30 <ivar-lazzaro> as long as that requirement is fulfilled, we can experiment with anything else :)
18:58:41 <rukansari> ivar-lazzaro: can you clarify "we need to keep the current behavior when people use the remote subnet SG manager"
18:58:46 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: ok
18:59:03 <ivar-lazzaro> rkukura: the new SG patch has 2 different sg manager
18:59:10 <ivar-lazzaro> rukansari: ^^
18:59:36 <ivar-lazzaro> rukansari: one is a backward compatible sg manager, which uses remote subnets just as we do today
18:59:55 <ivar-lazzaro> rukansari: when that manager runs, we need to keep the same limitations we have had so far
19:00:05 <rukansari> ivar-lazzaro:got it!
19:00:26 <SumitNaiksatam> rukansari: hence the suggestion to document the limitations/constraints so that everyone is on the same page
19:00:40 <SumitNaiksatam> alright we are the hour
19:00:45 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Open Discussion
19:00:55 <SumitNaiksatam> anything we missed?
19:01:14 <SumitNaiksatam> (name change is still on the table, not forgotten!)
19:01:34 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: my favorite!
19:01:38 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: :-)
19:01:41 <rukansari> Have a question w.r.t: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/166424/8/gbpservice/neutron/services/servicechain/drivers/simplechain_driver.py
19:02:07 <SumitNaiksatam> rukansari: can we take it to #openstack-gbp?
19:02:14 <SumitNaiksatam> we are passed the time
19:02:22 <rukansari> Is this an issue that that this admin user has to be a member of each and every tenant?
19:02:25 <rukansari> ok
19:02:33 <SumitNaiksatam> rukansari: yes, that will be the case
19:02:43 <SumitNaiksatam> good observation
19:02:59 <SumitNaiksatam> alright, thanks everyone for joining!
19:03:02 <SumitNaiksatam> bye
19:03:06 <igordcard> Bye
19:03:06 <Yi_> bye
19:03:08 <SumitNaiksatam> #endmeeting