15:01:22 <carl_baldwin> #startmeeting neutron_l3
15:01:23 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Jun 26 15:01:22 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is carl_baldwin. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:01:23 <armax> carl_baldwin: come on don’t be :)
15:01:24 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:01:26 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'neutron_l3'
15:01:49 <carl_baldwin> #topic Announcements
15:02:24 <carl_baldwin> Mid-cycle sprint is coming up in almost two weeks.
15:02:24 <tmorin> hi
15:02:28 <carl_baldwin> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/neutron-juno-mid-cycle-meeting
15:03:06 <salv-orlando> aloha
15:03:19 <carl_baldwin> Juno-2 is well underway.  I think it is July 24th.
15:03:28 <carl_baldwin> tmorin: salv-orlando: hi
15:03:56 <carl_baldwin> Our big priority is to get DVR code merged by then.
15:04:31 <carl_baldwin> #topic neutron-ovs-dvr
15:04:54 <carl_baldwin> Do we expect Swami today?
15:05:21 <mrsmith> doubtful - he is OOO
15:05:33 <carl_baldwin> Yeah, just hoping.  :)
15:05:48 <mrsmith> +1
15:05:50 <carl_baldwin> Many of the patches have seen a lot of improvement in the last week.
15:06:05 <carl_baldwin> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/neutron-ovs-dvr,n,z
15:06:49 <carl_baldwin> All but one were passing Jenkins yesterday.  That is a big improvement over just one week ago.
15:07:11 <armax> carl_baldwin: I expect to make further progress by the end of the week
15:07:40 <carl_baldwin> I’m mostly happy with https://review.openstack.org/84223 now.  That is the first one that needs to merge.
15:08:04 <mrsmith> carl - one note on that patch
15:08:08 <armax> carl_baldwin: there are still a few weaknesses that I think we can address, but all in all I am pleased to see the amount of work that went in to give the patches a better structure
15:08:14 <mrsmith> one of the reviewers on the l3-agent patch
15:08:30 <mrsmith> noticed some snat functionality is missing from the l3-extension patch
15:08:30 <carl_baldwin> armax: ++
15:08:46 <mrsmith> I'll add a comment to the same on the l3-ext patch
15:10:06 <carl_baldwin> mrsmith: Thanks for pointing that out.  I agree that there are some weaknesses but I feel like the patch is ready for broader reviewing.
15:10:12 <armax> mrsmith: is it a result of a bad merge or revision gone sour, or is it something that was never there in the first place?
15:10:16 <carl_baldwin> mrsmith: Is this something you know how to address?
15:10:28 <mrsmith> yes - we changed the snat port communication late in the game
15:10:37 <mrsmith> we just need to update the patch with what we have locally
15:10:45 <mrsmith> not a big deal
15:10:47 <armax> mrsmith: cool
15:11:19 <carl_baldwin> mrsmith: Thanks.
15:11:22 <mrsmith> np
15:11:33 <mrsmith> and it only effects DVR snat
15:11:38 <mrsmith> not legacy/regression
15:11:41 <armax> mrsmith: are you going to push a new revision to swami’s patch or shall we coordinate amongst the larger group?
15:12:12 <mrsmith> no sure - I haven't been tracing the progress of that patch as much as others
15:12:17 <mrsmith> we can chat offline
15:12:22 <armax> ok
15:12:25 <mrsmith> *not sure
15:12:36 <armax> let’s take this offline than
15:12:42 <armax> you know how to find me or carl_baldwin
15:12:49 <mrsmith> yup :)
15:13:15 <carl_baldwin> mrsmith: Once we get that part in shape then I’d like to ping one more core to review the patch for another perspective.
15:13:30 <mrsmith> yes - even now... I think the core stuff is there
15:14:04 <carl_baldwin> mrsmith: Great.
15:14:13 <armax> mrsmith: so we might want to consider to have the addition closer to a downstream patch
15:14:33 <mrsmith> possibly...
15:14:36 <carl_baldwin> armax: ?
15:14:38 <armax> mrsmith: I mean where it’s used, but then again, let’s talk later
15:14:56 <mrsmith> it comes back to carl (and other's) wish to pull the patches together as-is and have DVR work
15:15:21 <mrsmith> legacy may work - but DVR will not
15:15:41 <carl_baldwin> Okay.  Let’s move on.
15:15:54 <armax> mrsmith: right, but legacy is the deafult code path being tested
15:16:01 <mrsmith> agreed
15:16:02 <armax> yup, let’s move on
15:16:31 <carl_baldwin> armax: Nice work splitting up 87730 in to multiple patches.
15:16:50 <carl_baldwin> What is the status of those patches?  I’ve been through a couple of review cycles but I lost track of it yesterday.
15:17:08 <armax> carl_baldwin: I need to push one more revision to update the one on the models
15:17:25 <armax> carl_baldwin: but it won’t take me long
15:17:32 <armax> carl_baldwin: I just need to find the time ;)
15:18:05 <carl_baldwin> Understood.  I’ll watch for the updates and try to get my feedback up promptly.
15:18:39 <carl_baldwin> Other reviewers are welcome too.  Please try to do comprehensive reviews.
15:19:23 <armax> ++
15:19:32 <carl_baldwin> mrsmith: How is https://review.openstack.org/#/c/89413/ ?
15:19:52 <armax> yes, the fewer revisions we can do the better
15:20:00 <mrsmith> going well
15:20:09 <mrsmith> I plan to create a new dvr_util.py file
15:20:18 <mrsmith> to hold some of the pure dvr methods
15:20:18 <carl_baldwin> mrsmith: Great work on the tests.  Jenkins has been passing which relieves some concern.
15:20:24 <mrsmith> as suggested by armax
15:20:45 <mrsmith> a few other cleanups to do
15:20:50 <armax> mrsmith: yes, let’s see how it looks
15:20:50 <mrsmith> otherwise pretty stable
15:21:04 <armax> yesterday I was speaking with Murali and I have some doubts
15:21:05 <mrsmith> I hope to update again soon
15:21:11 <armax> on some of the config options made available there
15:21:12 <carl_baldwin> Will you have time to do another turn-around on it?
15:21:21 <armax> I wonder whether we can consolidate some of them
15:21:23 <mrsmith> I hop so
15:21:27 <carl_baldwin> armax: made where?  In Murali’s patch?
15:21:35 <armax> no mrsmith
15:21:36 <armax> 's
15:21:45 <armax> three bool options have been defined
15:21:55 <carl_baldwin> mrsmith: Please reach out if you think I can help.  I’ll make time for whatever I can do.
15:22:02 <mrsmith> thanks
15:22:08 <mrsmith> armax - doubts on the config?
15:22:09 <armax> however of the 8 combinations available only a handful would make sense
15:22:35 <armax> so I wonder if we can abstract soem of them, instead of talking binary we can talk English
15:22:36 <carl_baldwin> armax: +1 I’ve wondered about that.
15:22:49 <armax> mrsmith: I’ll take that on the review, it’s the best place to discuss this
15:22:54 <mrsmith> I'm open to suggestions
15:23:09 <armax> mrsmith: sure
15:23:13 <mrsmith> we tried to keep things simple and yet support many setups
15:23:18 <armax> I am open to giving them :)
15:23:33 <mrsmith> for example - single node setup may not make sense
15:23:34 <carl_baldwin> We’ll look for that discussion on the review.
15:23:41 <mrsmith> but we may need to support it for tests
15:23:55 <armax> agreed, but I had a hard time wrapping my head around them, I wonder what an operator would do  if he does not want to dive in the code
15:24:04 <mrsmith> sure
15:24:33 <armax> mrsmith: I think my concern is more an usability issue rather than correctness of the solution proposed
15:24:41 <armax> s/an/a
15:24:53 <armax> anyhoo let’s move past thsi
15:24:57 <mrsmith> armax: ok - we want usability (aka ease of use)
15:24:59 <armax> *this
15:25:06 <carl_baldwin> Is Murali on IRC?  I don’t know his nick.
15:25:25 <mrsmith> don't think so..
15:25:33 <mrsmith> probably woulda chimed in by now
15:26:03 <armax> carl_baldwin: maybe I can help
15:26:07 <armax> I spoke with him last nite
15:26:08 <carl_baldwin> I’m most concerned about https://review.openstack.org/#/c/89694/.
15:26:23 <armax> carl_baldwin: what do you wanna know?
15:26:48 <carl_baldwin> The Jenkins failures mostly.  I fear that reviewers are not giving it any attention because of the failiures.
15:27:14 <armax> carl_baldwin: correct
15:27:25 <armax> this is the only patch that has never passed tests so far
15:27:50 <armax> I have a pretty good understanding why Tempest tests are failing
15:27:57 <armax> I can look at the UT too
15:28:02 <carl_baldwin> Right.  From one perspective, that is great progress.
15:28:18 <armax> so if Murali doesn’t beat me to it I’ll bash the patch into shape later today
15:28:23 <carl_baldwin> armax: Would you like some help with the UTs?
15:28:37 <armax> yesterday we had a different failure mode as of today
15:28:45 <armax> so I need to look at it again
15:28:50 <carl_baldwin> armax: What is up with the Tempest tests?
15:29:01 <armax> carl_baldwin: if you can spare a few minutes that’d be great
15:29:14 <carl_baldwin> Yes, I can make time for it.
15:29:18 <armax> carl_baldwin: fundamentally Murali’s patch depends on mrsmith’s
15:29:21 <armax> that said…
15:29:42 <carl_baldwin> I did follow your rebase.  Good move.
15:29:43 <armax> that is only true for the ‘distributed’ code path
15:29:54 <mrsmith> armax: right
15:30:00 <armax> the centralized code path shouldn’t be affected
15:30:01 <mrsmith> legacy shouldn't be affected
15:30:18 <armax> but it looks like the scheduler code being proposed alters that
15:30:36 <armax> and when a tempest test tries to add a rotuer to an agent
15:30:39 <carl_baldwin> armax: alters it how?
15:30:51 <armax> neutron is not able to find an eligible agent
15:31:10 <armax> it alters the election logic to find a suitable agent to move the router on
15:31:39 <armax> I pinpointed the problem in the code when speaking with Murali
15:32:18 <armax> then he pushed another patch but it doesn’t seem it did any effect so I need to see at the diff he pushed
15:32:28 <carl_baldwin> armax: Since you have a handle on that.  I’ll leave you to it but I will plan to get to the UTs later today.
15:32:39 <armax> greate
15:32:40 <armax> great
15:32:44 <armax> thanks
15:33:37 <carl_baldwin> Sorry to take the whole meeting for DVR but I have one more thing.
15:33:56 <carl_baldwin> We have 7 interdependent patches in flight.
15:34:22 <carl_baldwin> I prefer this over the larger patches but it does present problems of its own.
15:34:45 <armax> if there’s nothing else, maybe we can move on
15:35:17 <carl_baldwin> With different authors on different patches it is easy to clobber things.
15:36:16 <armax> carl_baldwin: true, but that’s the nature of collaborative open source business :)
15:36:50 <armax> carl_baldwin: can’t argue with the fact that things could’ve been simpler
15:36:56 <carl_baldwin> I think uploading patches with —no-rebase is a good idea.  The problem this avoids is that otherwise, uploading a patch rebases the dependent patches which another author may be working on.
15:37:04 <armax> carl_baldwin: but there’s always a lesson to be learned
15:37:35 <carl_baldwin> But, this means that we’ll need to think about rebasing consciously because we can’t get behind by more than a day or two.
15:38:04 <carl_baldwin> Thoughts?
15:38:51 <armax> carl_baldwin: it’s difficult because it depends on the punctual state the patches are in
15:38:56 <armax> and how trunk moves forward
15:39:16 <armax> in theory we can have people do git-review with --no-rebase
15:39:30 <armax> and have a person that does a single sweep twice a week for instances
15:39:52 <armax> but then what happens if the root patch goes sour and merge conflicts arise?
15:40:16 <armax> so maybe we can use —no-rebase as the committer’s default action
15:40:16 <carl_baldwin> I’d prefer that.  I am willing to watch the patches and ping authors when they need to rebase.
15:40:39 <armax> and if a merge conflict arises we you or I can do a global sweep
15:40:49 <armax> you as in carl_baldwin
15:41:09 <carl_baldwin> Merge conflicts are inevitable.  They will happen either way.  I’d just prefer they happen when the author is ready.
15:41:41 <carl_baldwin> Yes, I am willing to handle it because I think it will be better for authors to not have their patches moved out from under them.
15:42:59 <carl_baldwin> I’ll watch daily for any patch that is two days out of date from its upstream.
15:43:14 <armax> cool
15:43:24 <carl_baldwin> Okay.  Anything else on DVR?
15:44:19 <carl_baldwin> #topic l3-svcs-vendor-*
15:44:21 <carl_baldwin> pcm_: hi
15:44:24 <pcm_> Hi
15:44:25 <carl_baldwin> Any update here?
15:44:40 <pcm_> Have reference implementation out for review #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/102351/4
15:45:10 <pcm_> Having a Jenkins failure, 'process-returncode'. Not sure where the error is on that. Could use some ides.
15:45:14 <pcm_> ideas.
15:45:38 <carl_baldwin> process-returncode is not interesting by itself.  Are there other failures?
15:45:38 <pcm_> Have a Cisco patch ready for review, but waiting, until I can get the ref one clean.
15:45:38 <yamamoto> isn't the real failure is another one?
15:45:51 <yamamoto> ie. test_reference_driver_used
15:46:00 <carl_baldwin> Yes, the other failure is the interesting one.
15:46:17 <pcm_> It shows two failures in the summary, but only FAIL line I see is for process-returncode
15:46:19 <pcm_> odd
15:46:34 <pcm_> #link http://logs.openstack.org/51/102351/4/check/gate-neutron-python27/a757b36/console.html
15:46:43 <carl_baldwin> Yeah, there isn’t much in the report at all.
15:46:59 <yamamoto> look at testr_results
15:47:09 <pcm_> yamamoto: OK will do.
15:47:31 <carl_baldwin> I looked and it doesn’t have much.
15:47:40 <carl_baldwin> pcm_: Does that test pass locally for you?
15:48:39 <pcm_> On the last run (in a VM) I get the same result, though I occasionally get unrelated errors on runs.
15:48:50 <pcm_> Rerunning again to see.
15:49:05 <carl_baldwin> We should probably take this out of the meeting.  Ping me later today on it.
15:49:16 <pcm_> will do
15:49:26 <carl_baldwin> You’ll want to have Jenkins passing fully to get on reviewers radar.  Anything else?
15:49:42 <carl_baldwin> #topic l3-high-availability
15:49:45 <pcm_> Nope. I had it working in V2, but made a change and it failed.
15:49:55 <carl_baldwin> safchain: Are you around?
15:51:14 <carl_baldwin> #topic bgp-dynamic-routing
15:51:24 <carl_baldwin> nextone92: devvesa: hi
15:51:28 <devvesa> o/
15:51:49 <carl_baldwin> I didn’t quite finish my review of your bp.  I need to finish that today.
15:52:12 <carl_baldwin> I wanted another look at the diagrams.
15:52:13 <devvesa> ok, great
15:52:27 <carl_baldwin> Did you see my comments?
15:52:33 <devvesa> yes
15:52:59 <devvesa> thanks for respond the questions
15:53:09 <carl_baldwin> Could those points be worked in to the bp to make things a little clearer?
15:53:25 <devvesa> yes, sure
15:53:49 <devvesa> I'll wait your today's review and I'll prepare another patch
15:54:02 <carl_baldwin> Okay.  I don’t promise I’ll get to it early.
15:54:15 <carl_baldwin> But, I will get to it.
15:54:25 <devvesa> 6pm here. today's review will be tomorrow for me :)
15:54:36 <carl_baldwin> Okay.
15:54:39 <carl_baldwin> Anything else?
15:54:55 <tmorin> last week, yamamoto was wanting an intro on bagpipe
15:55:09 <tmorin> I'm avail if people have questions
15:55:40 <carl_baldwin> tmorin: Thanks.  I’m sorry I haven’t given that thread any attention yet.  It is still in my queue.
15:56:17 <tmorin> well, I guess the question is the choice of BGP speaker for bgp dynamic routing
15:56:36 <tmorin> we are working to implement the bgp vpn connectivity blueprint with bagpipe
15:56:45 <carl_baldwin> Only for the reference implementation.  I think there will be multiple implementations given the interest that I’ve seen.
15:57:06 <tmorin> yes, possibly so
15:57:29 <carl_baldwin> tmorin: Are you working with Nachi on that?
15:57:50 <tmorin> on the bgp vpn connection bp ? yes
15:58:03 <carl_baldwin> Great.
15:58:12 <devvesa> keshava also seemed to be interested in bgp-vpn
15:58:38 <tmorin> yes
15:58:46 <tmorin> we had a discuss on the list
15:58:55 <carl_baldwin> Yes.  There is plenty of interest.
15:59:05 <tmorin> anyways, if people want to investigate bagpipe for the dynamic (non-VPN) routing bp, feel free to ping me
15:59:17 <carl_baldwin> We’re almost out of time.  Let’s keep the ML threads going.  I will add my thoughts soon.
15:59:18 <tmorin> the non-VPN case should be easy to add to bagpipe
15:59:21 <tmorin> ok
15:59:23 <tmorin> thanks
15:59:31 <devvesa> tmorin: I'll take into account for sure
15:59:42 <carl_baldwin> #topic neutron-ipam
15:59:48 <tmorin> great, we're open
15:59:52 <carl_baldwin> We have 10 seconds.  :)
16:00:00 <carl_baldwin> I just wanted to say I haven’t forgotten about this topic.
16:00:22 <carl_baldwin> I am part way through a review of the bp but other priorities have starved it.
16:00:24 <seizadi> Hi - I'll be short I have all changes in bp and we are still on track for juno-2
16:00:36 <carl_baldwin> I encourage reviewers with interest to go add their comments and keep it going.
16:00:52 <carl_baldwin> seizadi: Thanks for keeping the momentum going.
16:01:02 <carl_baldwin> That is all we have time for.
16:01:06 <carl_baldwin> #endmeeting