18:01:03 <SumitNaiksatam> #startmeeting networking_policy
18:01:04 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Sep 15 18:01:03 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is SumitNaiksatam. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:01:06 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
18:01:08 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'networking_policy'
18:01:30 <SumitNaiksatam> #info agenda https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/GroupBasedPolicy#Sept_15th.2C_8th_2016
18:01:41 <SumitNaiksatam> just a follow up of last week’s discussion about the QoS patch
18:01:48 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Quality of Service support via NSPs
18:01:53 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/301701
18:01:55 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard: hi
18:02:11 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard: i think the only outstanding comment is the one from Bob about the devstack setup, right?
18:02:32 <SumitNaiksatam> bob -> rkukura :-)
18:03:06 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: in the comment you have already provided the suggestion on what to fix, right?
18:03:21 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: he will need the to have the qos extension
18:03:23 <rkukura> actually 2 comments
18:03:34 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: but perhaps not the port_security
18:04:09 <rkukura> If the normal devstack enables port_security, I think we should too
18:04:22 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: okay, i dont think it does, but i am not sure
18:05:29 <SumitNaiksatam> my bad, it does: #link https://github.com/openstack-dev/devstack/blob/fac8adbe1b2bdd2bae105228eb7acf2dd3f30da7/lib/neutron#L169
18:05:36 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: I know the ENABLE_APIC_AIM setup does
18:06:08 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: yeah, and i was going to check if the GBP devstack also does it, but seems like you are confirming it does
18:06:29 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: so all you are saying is that it need not be specified explicitly in the GBP conf?
18:06:37 <SumitNaiksatam> GBP -> GBP devstack
18:07:18 <rkukura> When GBP overrides something from regular devstack, it should add what it needs, and not remove thinkgs unless there is good reason
18:07:28 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: right
18:07:53 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: what is the second comment?
18:08:02 <rkukura> My point with my comment is just that he should use the override-defaults file to override extension_drivers
18:08:15 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: okay, got it
18:08:43 <rkukura> and also that it needs to take into account the fact that ENABLE_APIC_AIM already overrides extension_drivers
18:09:07 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: i will try to reach out to igordcard offline to settle this
18:09:20 <rkukura> The 2nd comment is that adding this config stuff to local.conf seems redundant
18:09:29 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: okay
18:09:30 <rkukura> Isn’t it handled by the GBP plugin?
18:09:50 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: i did not check if there was an overlap
18:10:05 <rkukura> We shouldn’t need to set extension_drivers both via override-defaults and via local.conf
18:10:12 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: agreed
18:10:51 <rkukura> There may be some stuff he sets in local.conf that he doesn’t set via some other mechanism, such as the agent extension
18:11:45 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: agreed, i havent been paying much attention until this point if there is any redundant config in local.conf, i have just been going with the mindset that it doesnt hurt
18:11:56 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: but yeah, over time this can lead to issues
18:12:16 <rkukura> We should minimize what needs to be added in local.conf for GBP to work
18:12:24 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: agreed
18:12:38 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: other than that you are okay with the patch?
18:12:51 <rkukura> I think so
18:12:56 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: ok good
18:13:19 <SumitNaiksatam> so if no one else has any objections, we can merge this patch once the devstack issues are sorted out
18:13:25 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: thanks for the review
18:13:29 <rkukura> I had forgotten to submit my comments, and didn’t realize when I finally did that igordcard had already uploaded patch set 22
18:13:38 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: ah okay, np
18:13:49 <SumitNaiksatam> looks like igordcard is not around
18:13:52 <rkukura> So maybe I should re-post my comments on the latest patch set
18:13:56 <SumitNaiksatam> so moving on
18:14:00 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: sure
18:14:18 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Tags
18:14:44 <SumitNaiksatam> a couple of weeks back we had the discussion about extending the Neutron tags framework to GBP resources
18:15:36 <SumitNaiksatam> there was some back and forth about whether using that framework was the best choice for the use case that we immediately wanted to solve, which is providing a micro-segmentation tag on the PT
18:16:20 <SumitNaiksatam> while i think we should still extend the neutron tags framework, to specifically sove the above use case, i am leaning towards just creating a driver specific extension for the apic_mapping driver
18:16:56 <SumitNaiksatam> we can use this as a experiment to gain experience in terms of how want to progress in the future with other resources
18:17:34 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: sound okay?
18:18:03 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: What’s your view on the argument that tags are intended for orchestration layers above, and should not influence back-end behaviour?
18:18:33 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: so in the driver extension we will not call them tags :-)
18:18:52 <tbachman> tomato, tomAHtoe
18:18:55 <rkukura> That’s one way of avoiding that argument ;)
18:18:58 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: i think makes sense not to override established convention
18:19:15 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: :-)
18:19:57 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: to give a brief summary, we want to be able to use something akin to what people seem to call “labels”
18:20:03 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: Wasn’t there already some sort of tag/label proposed for the GBP model, but not implemented?
18:20:16 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: that is right, it was not implemented
18:20:27 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: we were calling those policy tags
18:20:32 <rkukura> Is that equivalent to what you are proposing to add now?
18:20:50 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: but that terminology pre-dates the “tag” usage in openstack
18:21:24 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: that proposal was a full blown resource, with notion of hierarchy, etc
18:21:42 <rkukura> I figured we used “tag” instead of “label” in the same way we used “policy target” instead of “endpoint” ;)
18:21:52 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: for now i just mean to add a string driver extension attribute to the PT
18:22:03 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: understood
18:22:22 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: ha, could be (my memory fails me)
18:22:31 <rkukura> I don’t see a problem with that, but would want to make sure the semantics were cleanly defined in a way that could eventually be required of all policy drivers
18:22:58 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: okay
18:24:25 <SumitNaiksatam> anyone else have thoughts on this?
18:25:46 <SumitNaiksatam> okay moving on
18:25:54 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Open Discussion
18:26:08 <SumitNaiksatam> is songole or hemanthravi here?
18:26:35 <SumitNaiksatam> i dont have anything else, just wanted to check about the pending NFP patches
18:26:47 <SumitNaiksatam> oh btw, we do have a new “aim” gate job
18:27:11 <SumitNaiksatam> and currently the aim and the nfp devstack gate jobs are failing because they are running on xenial
18:27:23 <SumitNaiksatam> i tried to fix that in this patch:
18:27:43 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/369009/
18:28:02 <SumitNaiksatam> i fixed the nfp job with that but aim is failing for other reasons, so we need to fix that
18:28:19 <igordcard> hi
18:28:25 <igordcard> hi
18:28:31 <SumitNaiksatam> if nothing else i think i should make this fix only for the nfp patch
18:28:35 <SumitNaiksatam> and get it to work
18:28:38 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard: hi, welcome
18:28:40 <igordcard> sorry I had this scrolled up
18:28:47 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard: we discussed your patch
18:29:01 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard: thanks for posting the new patchset
18:29:03 <igordcard> keep going, we can go perhaps go back to qos at the end?
18:29:24 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard: are you fine with the devstack related comments that rkukura has provided?
18:29:46 <igordcard> SumitNaiksatam: yes I just replied... the local.conf is simply because of the functional tests
18:30:13 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard: ah okay, so its not the devstack plugin local.conf, its the one for the gate job?
18:30:19 <igordcard> SumitNaiksatam: yeah
18:30:28 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard: then its not a problem
18:30:36 <igordcard> gbpservice/tests/contrib/devstack/local.conf
18:30:42 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard: okay cool
18:31:01 <rkukura> igordcard: You should probably also use override-defaults for setting agent:extensions
18:31:04 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard: of course at some point we need to move the gate job to run the devstack plugin
18:31:19 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard: the above comment was not directed at you
18:31:38 <SumitNaiksatam> meant that as a general comment
18:31:45 <rkukura> Is the gate job not using the plugin?
18:33:40 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: no
18:34:10 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: OK, didn’t realize that
18:34:14 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: the gate job setup pre-dated the plugin, and we never got around to changing the gate job once the plugin was there
18:34:31 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: but, the configuration is very similar (if not identical)
18:35:40 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: Lets use the plugin for the new AIM gate job and get that working, then switch the regular gate job over.
18:35:54 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: okay
18:36:47 <SumitNaiksatam> anyone else wants to discuss anything else today?
18:37:38 <SumitNaiksatam> alrighty, thanks everyone for joining
18:37:40 <SumitNaiksatam> bye!
18:37:44 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: thanks!
18:37:55 <SumitNaiksatam> #endmeeting