14:00:30 <haleyb> #startmeeting neutron_drivers
14:00:30 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Fri Jan 26 14:00:30 2024 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is haleyb. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:00:30 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:00:30 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'neutron_drivers'
14:00:40 <slaweq> o/
14:00:41 <mlavalle> \o
14:00:41 <haleyb> Ping list: ykarel, mlavalle, mtomaska, slawek, obondarev, tobias-urdin, lajoskatona, amotoki
14:00:46 <obondarev> o/
14:00:52 <lajoskatona> o/
14:01:59 <ralonsoh> hi
14:02:22 <haleyb> alright, we have quorum
14:02:46 <mlavalle> \o/
14:02:59 <mlavalle> first time this year
14:03:01 <haleyb> i forgot to update the wiki, but seems we have 3 things to review
14:03:43 <haleyb> first rfe
14:03:46 <haleyb> https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2047849
14:03:54 <haleyb> [RFE] Start using oslo messaging namespaces
14:04:03 <haleyb> mtomaska__: are you here?
14:04:22 <haleyb> although i see ralonsoh sent out the patch
14:04:25 <ralonsoh> I've started with a POC: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron/+/905309
14:04:45 <ralonsoh> this is duplicating the server RPCs: one with namespace, the other one without it
14:05:07 <ralonsoh> to allow the upgrades (newer servers, older agents)
14:05:15 <ralonsoh> of course, I found some issues...
14:05:29 <ralonsoh> in any case, the question here is if that should be approved or not
14:06:28 <ralonsoh> I'll start: yes, the RPC segregation should have been done since the beginning
14:06:45 <ralonsoh> RPC channels between different agents should have different namespaces and different APIs
14:06:49 <lajoskatona> +1
14:06:55 <ralonsoh> (now we are sharing some of them...)
14:07:06 <mlavalle> it's really technical debt
14:07:11 <mlavalle> so yes
14:07:12 <ralonsoh> exactly
14:07:44 <lajoskatona> but as you mentioned it isi tricky for the upgrade, C is slurp, am I right?
14:07:46 <haleyb> ralonsoh: so what happens during an upgrade?
14:08:03 <slaweq> for me there is no question if we should or not do that - we should BUT we need to have good plan and test well upgrades
14:08:07 <ralonsoh> during the upgrade the server will be listening to two namespaces
14:08:12 <slaweq> with keeping in mind SLURP releases
14:08:36 <ralonsoh> slaweq, right, this is mandatory and probably we'll need something more that grenade jobs
14:08:36 <slaweq> lajoskatona yes, C will be SLURP
14:09:15 <mlavalle> I don't think there is any doubt we should do this. The question is how
14:09:26 <obondarev> so what's the main issue that namespaces are solving? Is it just method names collisions?
14:09:51 <ralonsoh> yes, we had that in the DHCP agent recently
14:10:06 <ralonsoh> so each API should be independent
14:10:18 <obondarev> I see, thanks
14:10:24 <ralonsoh> and each RPC server should be listening only to th specific agents
14:11:30 <haleyb> and to the SLURP question, it seems we should get this done in C to be useful for next SLURP
14:11:51 <ralonsoh> hmmm to be honest, i don't know if I'll be able to finish that in C
14:12:02 <ralonsoh> I know our current release cadence
14:13:03 <lajoskatona> that is my feeling also we are quite in the middle of C for this
14:13:41 <haleyb> ack
14:13:44 <ralonsoh> in any case, this is not a high priority, is not affecting any deployment and should be considered as a tech debt
14:14:34 <haleyb> right, thanks
14:14:56 <lajoskatona> as I see we can prepare it (perhaps discuss during the ptg in detail) and activate it in E
14:16:30 <mlavalle> yes, we don't have a deluge of cases affected by this. so we have time
14:18:11 <slaweq> ++
14:18:33 <haleyb> ok. and i guess that once it's complete we can decide if we activate in D or E
14:18:40 <haleyb> lets vote
14:18:44 <mlavalle> +1
14:18:49 <haleyb> +1
14:18:50 <obondarev> +1
14:19:00 <ralonsoh> +1
14:19:11 <slaweq> +1
14:19:39 <haleyb> great, and should i assign to you ralonsoh ?
14:19:45 <ralonsoh> yeah
14:19:51 <lajoskatona> +!
14:22:12 <haleyb> ok, there was another RFE filed by ralonsoh this week
14:22:16 <haleyb> https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2049623
14:22:23 <haleyb> [RFE] Refactor OVS Trunk plugin to have one single port
14:22:37 <ralonsoh> If you don't mind, I'll first try to create a POC
14:22:47 <ralonsoh> if that works, then I'll present it here
14:22:53 <haleyb> ralonsoh: that was going to be my first question
14:22:55 <ralonsoh> if not, I'll close the bug
14:23:11 <opendevreview> morice proposed openstack/neutron master: [ovn] AZs distribution in L3 port scheduler  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron/+/892604
14:23:29 <ralonsoh> so please, discard this one for now
14:24:57 <haleyb> ok, and the other one we were also going to wait for a POC
14:24:58 <haleyb> https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2045058
14:25:22 <haleyb> so i guess there is nothing else on the agenda
14:25:44 <haleyb> any other things anyone wants to discuss?
14:25:59 <mlavalle> not from me
14:26:03 <ralonsoh> no thanks
14:26:09 <lajoskatona> nothing from me
14:26:11 <slaweq> nothing from me
14:26:32 <haleyb> ok, thanks for attending and have a nice weekend!
14:26:36 <haleyb> #endmeeting