15:00:40 #startmeeting neutron_dvr 15:00:40 Meeting started Wed Apr 26 15:00:40 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is haleyb. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:00:41 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 15:00:43 The meeting name has been set to 'neutron_dvr' 15:00:48 #chair Swami 15:00:49 Current chairs: Swami haleyb 15:01:07 #topic Announcements 15:01:55 Summit is almost here, May 8th 15:02:07 sometimes I think i'm just stating the obvious :) 15:02:14 haleyb: I have sent you a link to the presentation slide template. 15:02:23 haleyb: did you receive it. 15:02:58 Yes, I got the link, will start working on it since we don't have much time 15:03:15 Swami: are you flying in Sunday? 15:03:31 haleyb: yes check on the agenda and see if we need to add any other topic to the agenda. I will try to update the remaining slides based on the agenda. 15:03:55 ok, will do 15:04:16 haleyb: I am flying in on Friday and reaching boston on Saturday. I will be spending a day with my relatives in Boston and will reach the hotel on Sunday. 15:05:04 haleyb: will you be there for all 4 days. 15:05:38 I plan on driving down Monday morning, might see about Sunday night if I don't have a conflict 15:05:50 will be there until Thursday though 15:06:11 haleyb: ok, you mentioned a while ago that you may be there for a couple of days. 15:06:17 That's the reason I asked. 15:07:49 yes, i finally did get approval, otherwise might have only spent a couple of days there 15:08:17 haleyb: ok good. 15:08:42 let's move on 15:08:47 topic #Bugs 15:09:08 i didn't update the wiki, but think there's just one missing, wasn't new 15:09:15 haleyb: thanks 15:09:24 Yes I did not see any new bugs this week. 15:09:35 Unless I missed something in between. 15:09:39 https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1682345 is the missing one 15:09:40 Launchpad bug 1682345 in neutron "neutron metering agent does not work in DVR mode" [Undecided,Confirmed] 15:10:01 oh, maybe it's there but the title changed so i didn't notice 15:10:02 haleyb: Yes I think we discussed about this last week. 15:10:32 haleyb: There is one other topic that I wanted to discuss with you regarding the RFE patch that we pushed in. 15:10:38 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/355062/ 15:11:19 haleyb: Yes there might be an IPv6 issue with this patch for the fast path exit. 15:11:45 We don't have an IPv6 link local address configured for the eth-pair connecting the router and fip namespace. 15:13:05 Today we still don't support IPv6 for fip-ns in the compute node. ( I meant the fip agent gateway port does not have an IPv6 address and only has IPv4 address). 15:13:23 What do you think will be the right approach. 15:13:52 Can we restrict this patch to support only IPv4 traffic and for IPv6 traffic can we still redirect to the SNAT namespace. 15:14:13 i think ignoring IPv6 would be the current option. I was just looking to see if we always forced IPv4 in the ip_lib calls we made 15:14:37 yes, what you said ^^ 15:15:05 haleyb: Yes let us ignore the IPv6 for now and probably can add in a patch later when we support IPv6 through the compute nodes. 15:16:29 haleyb: sounds good to me. I will make the change to restrict it to IPv4 then. 15:16:46 great, thanks 15:17:05 haleyb: Also probably if the interface has dual stack, then we might go with the SNAT redirect. 15:17:26 haleyb: if no dual stack and just IPv4, then use the fast path exit. 15:18:17 Swami: so don't just add IPv4 routes for v4 subnets? none for v6? 15:19:02 haleyb: I did not get what you are saying. 15:19:57 i thought you were saying if the interface is v4/v6 send everything to SNAT 15:20:41 haleyb: The case were I make a decision to use the fast-path-exit or not is based on the address-scope-match. 15:21:20 haleyb: What I should be doing is if the address-scopes-match and if the interface is not a dual-stack then use the fast-path-exit and don't delete the snat-redirect path. 15:23:06 haleyb: does that sound ok. 15:24:07 i'm still confused. when i think dual-stack i think both v4/v6, which would be no fast-path exit? 15:24:38 haleyb: yes you are right. When it is dual stack, then no fast-path-exit. I am ok with that. 15:25:05 why can't we just do v4-fast-exit and not v6? 15:25:43 haleyb: yes because when I decide to redirect all traffic to the fip-namespace, I make my decision based on the address-scope-match. 15:26:39 haleyb: I might have to check if that route rule is only applicable for IPv4 and not for IPv6. 15:27:13 haleyb: In that case we should be able to redirect just the IPv6 traffic to the SNAT namespace. Let me check that and will confirm you. 15:27:29 i would think so. most of the code there is v4-centric although it's not always obvious 15:27:59 haleyb: Ok will check and update. 15:28:24 haleyb: I don't have anything else to discuss with regards to the bugs. 15:29:29 ok 15:29:53 #topic Gate 15:30:26 * haleyb is waiting for grafana page to refresh 15:32:03 gate queue is clean from a DVR perspective 15:32:12 haleyb: nice 15:32:56 DVR jobs in check queue seem low, but only showing from 4/23 backwards, not today for some reason 15:33:34 maybe i clicked the wrong timeframe, waiting for refresh 15:35:12 well, it still seems good :) 15:35:23 haleyb: good 15:35:49 one if the non-voting jobs is still high but I haven't had a chance to look into it, dvr-multinode-scenario 15:36:06 but it's been high for a long time, not recent spike 15:37:22 either way, DVR isn't getting in the way 15:37:30 haleyb: ok sounds good. 15:37:49 haleyb: have you run those scenario jobs locally from tempest. 15:38:12 haleyb: I have not run those jobs locally, but just wanted to check is it easy to run those jobs locally. 15:38:30 no i haven't, but it should be possible. 15:38:58 haleyb: ok thanks 15:39:12 #topic Stable 15:39:38 I didn't see any DVR patches in the stable review list 15:40:12 haleyb: yes you are right. 15:40:22 +1 on that then 15:40:23 haleyb: There is one back port patch that is failing jenkins. 15:40:43 Swami: link? 15:40:44 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/456780/ 15:41:40 since it was +A the review dashboard didn't show it 15:42:06 haleyb: no problem, I just initiated a recheck and let's see how it goes. 15:42:14 might be best to rebase to master since there were some issues a couple of weeks ago, unless there's an obvious failure 15:42:52 if the recheck fails again let's rebase 15:43:05 haleyb: ok will rebase it. 15:43:07 the tools are usually smart about that 15:44:10 #topic Open Discussion 15:44:50 haleyb: lately I have been having issues with ubuntu-16-04 and tox requirements. Have you seen any similar issues. 15:45:17 Also the tempest installation fails with ubuntu 16-04 and devstack. 15:46:21 I had a problem stacking yesterday, but i haven't tried running tempest on it 15:46:47 my problem was a stale link in /etc/apache2 somewhere, but that's different 15:46:50 haleyb: Yes I have seen the issue with tempest for a while and recently removed the tempest from my stack. 15:47:24 haleyb: I will check it one more time. 15:47:55 i would first try pulling the latest devstack code and re-stacking. Does it fail to install when tempest is selected? 15:48:29 haleyb: Yes it goes all the way and fails when it tries to configure the tempest. I have seen some issues with flake and tempest related. 15:49:11 mine pulled and installed tempest, but i haven't tried to run any tests with it 15:49:32 i.e. tempest is enabled in local.conf 15:49:35 haleyb: ok 15:51:17 ping me if you trip over it again i might be able to help 15:51:24 haleyb: ok 15:51:59 guess we're done then 15:52:08 haleyb: yes, 15:52:33 haleyb: we are done. 15:52:42 #endmeeting