15:00:28 <carl_baldwin> #startmeeting neutron_l3
15:00:34 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Mar 26 15:00:28 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is carl_baldwin. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:36 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:00:36 <mlavalle> hi
15:00:39 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'neutron_l3'
15:00:57 <pc_m> hi
15:01:02 <carl_baldwin> #topic Announcements
15:01:04 <carl_baldwin> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Neutron-L3-Subteam
15:01:15 * carl_baldwin really needs to clean up that meeting page.
15:01:59 <carl_baldwin> We have a small number of topics still in play for rc1
15:02:01 <carl_baldwin> #link https://launchpad.net/neutron/+milestone/kilo-rc1
15:02:49 <carl_baldwin> Rc1 will be around April 9th.
15:03:05 <carl_baldwin> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Kilo_Release_Schedule
15:03:11 <carl_baldwin> Any other announcements?
15:04:32 <carl_baldwin> #topic neutron-ipam
15:05:28 <johnbelamaric> Well, as most in the meeting may know we were moved to L
15:05:56 <johnbelamaric> pavel_bondar is proceeding in any case to see if we can clean up the test failures
15:06:31 <johnbelamaric> then, we must decide whether to try to merge that version or proceed with the larger refactoring (which will touch plugins)
15:07:16 <johnbelamaric> I would like to target L1 if at all possible
15:07:25 <johnbelamaric> to cut off any chance of being pushed late in the L cycle
15:07:46 <carl_baldwin> johnbelamaric:  That is wise.
15:08:57 <carl_baldwin> I plan to keep time dedicated to reviewing and helping out where I can.
15:09:12 <johnbelamaric> carl_baldwin: thank you, that will help
15:09:48 <carl_baldwin> johnbelamaric, Do you have anything to discuss here?
15:10:00 <johnbelamaric> carl_baldwin: no, I think we can move on
15:10:29 <carl_baldwin> johnbelamaric, Thanks.  I will catch up on the email thread today.
15:11:23 <carl_baldwin> rtidwell is not here I don't think.
15:11:36 * carl_baldwin got his nick backwards
15:11:39 <tidwellr> I'm here
15:11:41 <carl_baldwin> tidwellr, are you around?
15:11:57 <carl_baldwin> tidwellr, sorry, I do that a lot with you nick for some reason.
15:12:16 <tidwellr> Sorry, laptop was acting up, had to log in on my phone
15:12:22 <carl_baldwin> I saw that the tests are looking much better on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/157597/
15:12:43 <pavel_bondar> hi, sorry for missing meeting start
15:12:56 <carl_baldwin> pavel_bondar, hi and welcome.
15:13:37 <tidwellr> Yes, I think we should discuss quotas, Salvatore had some reasonable concerns
15:14:21 <carl_baldwin> salv-orlando, are you around to discuss quotas?
15:14:32 <salv-orlando> yes I am
15:14:38 <salv-orlando> ...for 15 minutes
15:14:45 <tidwellr> I know it would be a bit of a bummer, but I wonder if we can get by without subnetpool quotas
15:15:04 <salv-orlando> I think it might acceptable for kilo.
15:15:16 <salv-orlando> or we can just try and have "global" per-tenant quotas
15:15:27 <salv-orlando> which would acceptable and better than what we have now at the moment
15:15:38 <salv-orlando> where what we have now == nothing at all
15:15:43 <carl_baldwin> salv-orlando, You mean the same quota for each tenant?
15:16:00 <salv-orlando> carl_baldwin: nope, each tenant has its own quota, but the quota is the same across pools
15:16:20 <salv-orlando> basically we should be able to do this adding pool_units as a "countableresource" in the quota API
15:17:29 <salv-orlando> but I don't know what are the requirements about quotas for subnet pools allocations from the stakeholder
15:17:47 <carl_baldwin> salv-orlando, By "same across pools" mean that a tenant has only one quota to use across all pools or that the quota is just the same across pools but is counted independently?
15:18:16 <salv-orlando> carl_baldwin: good question. The current quota API has only a global counter. So it would be total number of units across pools
15:18:29 <carl_baldwin> IOW, if I, a tenant, consume from one pool, does that decrease my quota for all pools?
15:18:30 <salv-orlando> the quota engine is fairly limited I'd say
15:18:44 <salv-orlando> yes, it's like with ports today
15:18:54 <salv-orlando> you have for instance 1000 ports across all networks
15:18:59 <salv-orlando> not 1000 ports per network
15:19:08 <carl_baldwin> salv-orlando, okay.  I understand.
15:19:29 <tidwellr> Doesn't seem very useful for what we want/need
15:19:37 <salv-orlando> ok let's keep it as it then
15:19:54 <salv-orlando> let's say that this is an exception, then? And quotas for subnet pools are managed in their own way?
15:20:04 <carl_baldwin> salv-orlando, that will be difficult.  Some pools may hold very valuable ipv4 global address space.  Other pools may have very cheap address space.
15:20:37 <carl_baldwin> salv-orlando, Yes, that was our thinking.  Sorry if that was not communicated well.
15:20:40 <salv-orlando> carl_baldwin, tidwellr: then let's forget about using the quota API. At this stage we should then approve tidwellr patch
15:21:08 <salv-orlando> if in the future we find a better way to manage quotas, we'll go back to the subnetpools API
15:22:47 <carl_baldwin> salv-orlando, That sounds good to me.  I did try to find a way to fit with the current API.  It just wasn't going to support what we need.
15:23:11 <salv-orlando> ok.
15:23:43 <salv-orlando> I think tidwellr has only to sort out nits and then that patch can go in.
15:23:44 <carl_baldwin> salv-orlando, Any other concerns about the patch or should we continue to address them in the patch?
15:23:51 <salv-orlando> carl_baldwin: I can ready your mind.
15:23:56 <salv-orlando> * read
15:24:13 <carl_baldwin> Or you read and type incredibly quickly.  Either way, I'm impressed.
15:24:32 <carl_baldwin> salv-orlando, Thank you for your time.
15:25:12 <salv-orlando> carl_baldwin, tidwellr: np. Sorry for wasting your time by raising these concerns.
15:25:36 <carl_baldwin> I do not see it as a waste of time.
15:25:39 <tidwellr> No worries, let's do the right thing
15:25:49 <carl_baldwin> tidwellr, Anything else to discuss?
15:25:58 <tidwellr> Nope
15:27:21 <carl_baldwin> tidwellr, salv-orlando:  Thank you.
15:27:40 <carl_baldwin> I'll link the quota patch.
15:27:43 <carl_baldwin> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/165264
15:28:59 <carl_baldwin> #topic neutron-ovs-dvr
15:29:12 <carl_baldwin> I don't know if anyone is around for this.
15:29:41 <carl_baldwin> Moving the dvr job to voting was discussed in the most recent Neutron meeting.
15:30:28 <carl_baldwin> That is good news.
15:30:46 <carl_baldwin> I thought there was a review to turn it to voting.  But, I can't find it.
15:32:24 <carl_baldwin> #topic Open Discussion
15:35:03 <carl_baldwin> Thanks for your time everyone!
15:35:10 <pc_m> bye
15:35:25 <carl_baldwin> #endmeeting