18:01:13 <SumitNaiksatam> #startmeeting networking_policy
18:01:13 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Aug 24 18:01:13 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is SumitNaiksatam. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:01:14 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
18:01:16 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'networking_policy'
18:01:42 <SumitNaiksatam> ##info agenda https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/GroupBasedPolicy#Aug_17th.2C_24_2017
18:01:52 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Subnetpools in resource_mapping driver
18:01:58 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/469681
18:02:14 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: annak, as before, thanks for working on this
18:02:18 <annak> tbachman: thanks for comments
18:02:18 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: thanks for the review
18:02:22 <tbachman> annak: np!
18:02:25 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: np!
18:02:30 <tbachman> annak: nice work!
18:02:31 <SumitNaiksatam> i took a quick look as well
18:02:40 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: +2
18:02:42 <annak> thanks :)
18:02:54 <SumitNaiksatam> the tbachman the issue that tbachman did not strike me
18:02:58 * tbachman likes annak’s improvements to the code
18:03:03 <SumitNaiksatam> i need to look more closely
18:03:16 <SumitNaiksatam> yes, indeed annak great work
18:03:18 * tbachman parses that previous sentence
18:03:37 <annak> lol
18:03:41 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: i meant to say that i didnt think of it, but the concern might be well placed
18:03:47 <tbachman> :)
18:03:55 <SumitNaiksatam> but other than that the patch looked good to me
18:04:15 <SumitNaiksatam> :-)
18:04:19 <tbachman> I think I’m good with the new version of the patch
18:04:26 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: ah okay
18:04:45 <SumitNaiksatam> i know rkukura is probably making his way to this patch after the other patches :-)
18:04:51 <rkukura> I’ll review the latest version ASAP
18:05:07 <SumitNaiksatam> i would hope to merge this soon since its been on review for a while
18:05:30 <annak> perhaps I'll port it first to ocata and verify with nsx gate job
18:05:44 <annak> there shouldn't be, but just in case
18:05:55 <annak> the gate is currently for ocata only
18:06:11 <SumitNaiksatam> annak: oh sure, good call
18:06:36 <SumitNaiksatam> annak: you can proactively backport it
18:06:42 <annak> there shouldn't be issues, I meant to say
18:06:47 <annak> ok
18:06:53 <SumitNaiksatam> hopefully there should not be too many changes
18:07:14 <SumitNaiksatam> and if there are, cherry-picking again to stable/ocata from master is straighforward
18:07:27 <annak> yep
18:07:32 <SumitNaiksatam> i backport even when my patch is not ready so that i dont forget :-P
18:07:44 <tbachman> lol
18:07:45 * tbachman has done that before
18:07:50 <SumitNaiksatam> so i apologize for the noise that i might be creating in terms of gerrit emails!
18:07:54 <tbachman> (forgotten, that is ;) )
18:08:03 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: lol
18:08:18 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Pending patches
18:08:29 <SumitNaiksatam> i am just going in top down order
18:08:35 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/496429
18:08:45 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: annak: thanks for your review on this
18:08:55 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: np!
18:08:57 <SumitNaiksatam> i am happy to discuss this patch or the context here in this meeting
18:09:49 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman probably has a little more context than other folks on this
18:10:04 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: I’m glad you did this — it’s something I’d had in the back of my mind for a bit, after I found a similar issue
18:10:11 <rkukura> quick summary would be helpful
18:10:12 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: oh cool
18:10:16 <tbachman> s/thanks for doing/I’m blad you did/
18:10:17 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: sure
18:10:19 <tbachman> er
18:10:22 <tbachman> other way round
18:10:24 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: lol
18:10:28 <tbachman> s/I’m glad you did/thanks for doing/
18:10:49 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: so i was investigating another issue which was reported by a customer wherein,
18:11:20 <SumitNaiksatam> in a multi-node neutron server setup, all the neutron servers were getting the same message from the host (opflex) agent
18:12:11 <SumitNaiksatam> while debugging i realized that GBP policy drivers dont have a way to add the RPC listeners they create, to the RPC workers’ thread that neutron creates and manages
18:12:56 <SumitNaiksatam> so although Neutron creates, say, 24 RPC workers, the listener setup by, say, the aim_mapping PD was only listening in one thread
18:13:09 <SumitNaiksatam> or one worker
18:13:49 <SumitNaiksatam> neutron provides a method (start_rpc_listeners) that needs to be implemented by the core plugin or the service_plugins
18:13:50 <rkukura> ok, but how does using the worker threads prevent the same message from being processed in multiple neutron-server processes, if I understood you correctly?
18:14:26 <SumitNaiksatam> that is based on the call/cast semantics
18:14:57 <rkukura> so we were getting cast semantics, but using start_rpc_listeners gives us call semantics?
18:15:25 <SumitNaiksatam> no the issue is much simpler
18:15:25 <rkukura> or is that orthogonal?
18:15:33 <SumitNaiksatam> yeah that is orthogonal
18:16:03 <SumitNaiksatam> in the case of call, we want that one of multiple workers be able to pick up the message
18:16:08 <rkukura> I guess if we have cast semantics, multiple worker threads will scale better
18:16:11 <SumitNaiksatam> but with the GBP PD you could only create one worker
18:16:17 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: right
18:16:38 <SumitNaiksatam> but GBP PD did not give you an option to do multiple workers
18:16:52 <SumitNaiksatam> this patch wires up the neutron call all the way to the PD
18:17:16 <SumitNaiksatam> in case you (as in, the PD) wants to add to the worker pool
18:17:24 <rkukura> ok, so this makes sense, and I guess we should do a separate patch to switch to call semantics for this RPC if necessary
18:17:54 <SumitNaiksatam> so there was an issue with call versus cast, which i had to fix on the python-opflex side
18:18:05 <tbachman> I guess this patch also makes lifecycle management of the listeners better?
18:18:25 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: yes we are participating in the framework that neutron provides
18:18:26 <tbachman> (since this moves into an RpcWorker
18:18:36 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: right that is my understanding
18:19:07 <rkukura> thanks SumitNaiksatam  - that really helps
18:19:19 <tbachman> rkukura: +1k
18:19:21 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: incorrect use of cast versus call turned out to be the original issue that i was investigating
18:19:27 <SumitNaiksatam> np
18:19:40 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/491874
18:20:26 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: hi ^^^
18:20:33 <SumitNaiksatam> is it ready now?
18:20:35 <tbachman> :)
18:20:47 <tbachman> I think it’s ready for reviews
18:20:53 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: ok thanks
18:21:18 <rkukura> my issues were very minor - I’ll re-review the update ASAP
18:21:31 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: thanks
18:21:40 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: ack to rkukura  :)
18:21:45 <SumitNaiksatam> there are a bunch of UI patches that are pending review:
18:21:48 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/group-based-policy-ui+branch:master
18:22:08 <SumitNaiksatam> i would like to thank marek for posting these patches
18:22:15 <SumitNaiksatam> sorry, i have been behind
18:22:30 <SumitNaiksatam> if anyone else in the team wants to take a stab, would appreciate that
18:22:46 <SumitNaiksatam> the problem we have with gbpui is that there isnt enough regression test support
18:23:12 <SumitNaiksatam> so you have to try these patches to actually validate
18:23:16 <SumitNaiksatam> that takes a bit of time
18:23:22 * tbachman nodes
18:23:24 <tbachman> nods
18:23:38 <SumitNaiksatam> there are some patches from ales as well, and these are more tricky to review
18:24:01 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: I haven’t looked at these yet, but hopefully the patch describes the issue and what’s fixed?
18:24:07 <SumitNaiksatam> or at least this one:
18:24:08 <SumitNaiksatam> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/493830/
18:24:15 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: yes :-)
18:24:28 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: thx!
18:24:46 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: but thanks for at least showing an inclination to look :-P
18:24:54 <tbachman> lol
18:24:55 <SumitNaiksatam> i know you reviewed the earlier patch as well
18:25:10 <tbachman> yeah — that was the motivation behind my question ;)
18:25:32 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:gbp_fip
18:25:47 <annak> I'll take a look though I don't think I ever opened the ui for gbp. Maybe its a good trigger
18:25:56 <SumitNaiksatam> annak: thanks :-)
18:26:27 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: on those two patches from annak, are we still waiting for something to merge on the apic/aim side?
18:26:43 <SumitNaiksatam> i meant in stable/ocata
18:27:04 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: I think we’re good. I went ahead and rebased them
18:27:05 <SumitNaiksatam> let me be more specific:
18:27:14 <tbachman> (the stable/ocata ones)
18:27:14 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: oh thanks
18:27:25 <SumitNaiksatam> so the aim job fails on this:
18:27:27 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/496918/
18:28:06 <SumitNaiksatam> maybe just a rebase required
18:28:15 <SumitNaiksatam> just rebased
18:28:30 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: thx!
18:28:30 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/496917/
18:28:32 <annak> thx
18:28:51 <SumitNaiksatam> annak: on this ^^^ we are not waiting for your CI, right?
18:29:26 <tbachman> Is there an NSX gate on master?
18:29:38 <annak> no, no need to wait
18:29:42 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: i think annak just said no, hence my question
18:29:44 <SumitNaiksatam> annak: thanks
18:29:45 <tbachman> ah
18:29:47 <tbachman> got it
18:29:48 <tbachman> :)
18:29:54 <annak> tbachman: no, I'm trying to wire up one
18:30:01 <SumitNaiksatam> annak: how is this test different from the other gbp_fip test?
18:30:01 <tbachman> annak: ack. Thx!
18:30:36 <annak> SumitNaiksatam: it has --enable_dhcp=False on external network
18:30:50 <SumitNaiksatam> annak: ah okay, thanks, would have been difficult to catch :-)
18:31:05 <annak> and another change related to default GW in static routes, which I'm still looking at on nsx side
18:31:07 <SumitNaiksatam> annak: come to think of it, i think we can do the same with the other script as well
18:31:13 <SumitNaiksatam> annak: okay
18:31:34 <SumitNaiksatam> but i dont think the default gateway needs to be ON for ext networks for the resource_mapping driver either
18:31:44 <annak> SumitNaiksatam: so if it ends up as dhcp issue only, should I unify them back?
18:31:45 <SumitNaiksatam> i guess we are just picking up the default
18:31:58 <SumitNaiksatam> annak: yes, that would be nice
18:32:15 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/494299
18:32:27 <annak> SumitNaiksatam: ok
18:32:39 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: #gate-world-problems
18:32:54 * tbachman notes it passes NSX gate ;)
18:33:01 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: lol
18:33:08 <SumitNaiksatam> i finished my testing of this ^^^ patch on a live setup (with the aim_mapping driver) and it works
18:33:28 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: needs a rebase, I think
18:33:29 <SumitNaiksatam> with the fixes that come in the patch it can work with any PD (not just aim_mapping)
18:33:33 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: yes i will
18:33:43 <SumitNaiksatam> but i havent been able to fix the UT issues on this
18:34:08 <SumitNaiksatam> i dont know how keystone related issues got triggered in the patch because my changes are unrelated
18:34:18 <SumitNaiksatam> i spent a while but i need to spend some more
18:34:44 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/496242/
18:35:04 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: i guess we have this covered
18:35:17 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: ack. rkukura had a good catch there
18:35:23 <tbachman> I am working on addressing that now
18:35:37 * tbachman needs to learn more about alembic migrations :P
18:35:39 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: thanks
18:35:44 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: thanks for the review
18:35:51 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: +1k
18:35:53 <SumitNaiksatam> yes indeed, good catch
18:35:59 <rkukura> np
18:36:08 <SumitNaiksatam> i believe rkukura did something similar in an earlier patch
18:36:20 <SumitNaiksatam> believe -> recall
18:36:29 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/496855/
18:37:37 <SumitNaiksatam> i guess this is straightforward
18:38:00 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/491894/
18:38:11 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: how about that one?
18:38:15 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: working on some UTs
18:38:23 <SumitNaiksatam> ah okay, you had mentioned earlier
18:38:26 <tbachman> I want the router port status to merge before I add the L3 UTs
18:38:27 <SumitNaiksatam> thanks!
18:38:32 <tbachman> and am working on UTs for the core plugin
18:38:33 <SumitNaiksatam> right right
18:39:05 <SumitNaiksatam> okay i think that covers all the patches that need to attention
18:39:11 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Open Discussion
18:39:20 <rkukura> nothing from me
18:39:28 * tbachman will not be at the PTG
18:39:30 <annak> nor from me..
18:39:36 <SumitNaiksatam> just a programming note at my end, i will be on leave starting tomorrow, and will be back on Sept 1st
18:39:47 * tbachman is still pining fo Sydney ;)
18:39:49 <SumitNaiksatam> yeah, i wont be at the PTG either
18:39:55 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: cool
18:40:07 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: cooler if I get to go ;)
18:40:08 <tbachman> lol
18:40:12 <rkukura> I won’t be at PTG
18:40:16 <SumitNaiksatam> annak: i think you should just come to the bay area, we can do the PTG here :-)
18:40:19 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: enjoy the PTO!
18:40:26 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: thanks
18:40:27 <annak> lol :)
18:40:42 <annak> I will likely come somewhere around january
18:40:47 <annak> would be happy to meet
18:40:50 <SumitNaiksatam> annak: ah okay
18:40:53 <rkukura> right, tbachman and I will both be there  the PTG week
18:41:01 * tbachman doesn’t know where annak resides
18:41:04 <SumitNaiksatam> i was going to say rkukura  and tbachman will be coming in Sept
18:41:13 <annak> tbachman: Vancouver
18:41:18 <tbachman> annak: nice!
18:41:22 <SumitNaiksatam> annak: i loved vancouver
18:41:26 * tbachman hails from the Pacific NW
18:41:35 * tbachman gets off-topic
18:41:36 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: there you go!
18:41:46 <SumitNaiksatam> on your next seattle trip :-)
18:41:48 <annak> well the next summit is here :)
18:41:54 <SumitNaiksatam> annak: oh yeah
18:41:55 <tbachman> :)
18:41:59 <SumitNaiksatam> may be we should all go
18:42:07 <SumitNaiksatam> alrighty thanks all
18:42:11 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: thanks!
18:42:17 <SumitNaiksatam> bye!
18:42:18 <annak> thanks, bye!
18:42:18 <rkukura> thanks SumitNaiksatam!
18:42:20 <rkukura> bye
18:42:21 <SumitNaiksatam> #endmeeting