15:00:29 <carl_baldwin> #startmeeting neutron_l3
15:00:30 <johnbelamaric> hi
15:00:30 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Jun  4 15:00:29 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is carl_baldwin. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:31 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:00:33 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'neutron_l3'
15:00:35 <carl_baldwin> pavel_bondar: john-davidge: hi
15:00:54 <carl_baldwin> #topic Announcements
15:01:02 <carl_baldwin> Liberty-1 is right around the corner.
15:01:20 <carl_baldwin> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Liberty_Release_Schedule
15:01:35 <vikram___> hi
15:01:40 <carl_baldwin> The Neutron mid-cycle is coming up.  In Fort Collins.  Anyone planning to attend?
15:01:57 <tidwellr> I am planning on it
15:02:01 <pc_m> carl_baldwin: yes
15:02:12 <johnbelamaric> carl_baldwin: I am still in the "maybe" category
15:02:13 <john-davidge> too far away for me unfortunately
15:02:15 <haleyb> will be there
15:02:19 <vikram___> :(
15:02:47 <Ramanjaneya> hi
15:03:02 <carl_baldwin> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/neutron-liberty-mid-cycle
15:03:14 <carl_baldwin> We will miss those who are unable to attend.
15:03:33 <vikram___> Me too ;)
15:03:39 <carl_baldwin> #topic Bugs.
15:04:06 <carl_baldwin> I did some triage but still need to do some more.
15:04:14 <carl_baldwin> Any bugs to bring up specifically?
15:05:07 <carl_baldwin> I don’t have any.
15:05:28 <carl_baldwin> gsagie: This is probably a good time to bring up your dvr patch
15:05:37 <gsagie> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/185368/ , not a bug but its the decomposition task
15:05:39 <carl_baldwin> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/185368/
15:06:00 <carl_baldwin> Right, not a bug but I thought we’d squeeze it in due to your constraints.
15:06:16 <gsagie> i aligned it with everyones comments, and would like to get it merged first before moving to the next step
15:06:24 <carl_baldwin> gsagie: I have not looked at it since my latest review.
15:06:46 <carl_baldwin> I think the naming was the only open question for me.  What names did you settle on?
15:07:19 <gsagie> carl_baldwin: what you suggested, however thats still mainly in comment and the file name, i think we can replace that going forward if we think of something better
15:07:45 <carl_baldwin> Okay.  I’ll have another look later today.
15:07:55 <gsagie> the next step/patch would be to remove the is_snat_host checks and align the unit tests and the creation in the agent
15:08:09 <gsagie> after that i will try to think about a composition model, but that will be more intrusive code wise
15:09:08 <carl_baldwin> gsagie: Let’s get to the second step and see what that looks like and go from there.
15:09:28 <gsagie> okie, waiting your reviews then :)
15:09:33 <carl_baldwin> gsagie: Any other open issues on this?
15:09:45 <gsagie> nope, and thanks for letting me go first, have to run, bye!
15:10:04 <carl_baldwin> gsagie: bye
15:11:42 <carl_baldwin> #topic bgp-dynamic-routing
15:11:59 <carl_baldwin> tidwellr: vikram___: devvesa: hi
15:12:03 <tidwellr> hi
15:12:04 <vikram___> hi
15:12:22 <vikram___> Rebasing for CLI and driver patch done!
15:12:50 <carl_baldwin> vikram___: Excellent, do you have links handy?
15:12:52 <vikram___> Good news we have a Horizon expert Vish willing to help us out for horizon
15:13:29 <vikram___> I have over-written the same patch
15:13:40 <vishwanathj> vikram___, Thanks for introducing me as an expert, don't think I am an expert but am glad to help out
15:13:54 <vikram___> ;)
15:14:19 <carl_baldwin> vishwanathj: There will be many opportunities for doing Horizon work for Neutron features.  :)
15:14:25 <vikram___> Driver: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/115938/
15:14:34 <vishwanathj> that will be awesome, appreciate the opportunity
15:14:39 <vikram___> CLI: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/111318/
15:15:08 <carl_baldwin> vikram___: Thanks.
15:15:19 <carl_baldwin> Anything needing discussion now?
15:15:28 <vikram___> Carl: Ramanjenya is also willing to help us for CLI work
15:15:30 <tidwellr> A couple issues to raise 1). I want to tread lightly with the scope of the spec https://review.openstack.org/#/c/125401/  2). The patches we have seem to be have been implemented as a service plugin. Is there a reason to continue down that path?
15:17:02 <tidwellr> in terms of scope, I'm concerned that we may be biting off a little too much by support both routed floating IP and routed tenant networks
15:17:34 <tidwellr> we can take the scope discussion to the spec, we don't need to go on about it here
15:17:55 <carl_baldwin> tidwellr: I think we should go for floating ips first and be sure that gets done.  The tenant networks piece will depend on address scopes which is not yet ready.
15:18:21 <carl_baldwin> I think doing tenant networks will be a stretch goal.
15:18:43 <carl_baldwin> Let’s take the service plugin discussion to the code review and possibly the ML.
15:18:54 <tidwellr> carl_baldwin: good plan
15:19:46 <carl_baldwin> Anything else on this topic?
15:19:56 <vikram___> Yes
15:20:17 <vikram___> What is plan about BP approval and code delivery?
15:20:19 <carl_baldwin> Nice work on getting the patches up to date.  Has any had much luck running them in a test environment against quagga or anything?
15:20:45 <vikram___> That's the next step;)
15:20:48 <carl_baldwin> vikram___: It looks like the BP may need one more turn.
15:21:43 <carl_baldwin> I’d like to see working code in someone’s test setup.  Hopefully one we can automate in the gate before merging the code.
15:22:39 <tidwellr> carl_baldwin: no luck yet, the API / DB layer has been interesting to say the least
15:23:42 <tidwellr> getting closer though, I'm hoping to have some code cleaned up and running next week
15:24:10 <carl_baldwin> We should make that the goal, connecting to floating ips through BGP routes rather than arp in an automated test.
15:24:21 <tidwellr> +1
15:24:26 <vikram___> +1
15:24:27 <carl_baldwin> tidwellr: vikram___:  Thanks for the update on progress.
15:24:42 <carl_baldwin> We have a lot to cover, so moving on...
15:24:47 <vikram___> Carl: I will be on a vacation for 2 weeks...
15:24:48 <carl_baldwin> #topic neutron-ipam
15:24:52 <vishwanathj> carl_baldwin, vikram___ was mentioning that there was some specific horizon work related to subnet pool that needs to be done...is there a link that you can share that has the details
15:24:54 <vikram___> Will ensure i sync up with ryan
15:24:56 <carl_baldwin> vikram___: ack
15:25:22 <carl_baldwin> vishwanathj: There is a blueprint, I will get you the link in a bit.
15:25:26 <vikram___> Carl: thanks
15:25:34 <vishwanathj> ok, thanks
15:25:56 <carl_baldwin> johnbelamaric: pavel_bondar: ping
15:26:03 <johnbelamaric> carl_baldwin: pong
15:26:06 <pavel_bondar> carl_baldwin: pong
15:26:18 <johnbelamaric> pavel_bondar broke the refactor/decompose patch up some more
15:26:26 <carl_baldwin> We’ve had some good progress.
15:26:27 <johnbelamaric> first patch just moves code around
15:26:30 <johnbelamaric> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/187961/
15:26:37 <johnbelamaric> pretty simple
15:26:42 <carl_baldwin> Ref impl and driver loader down.
15:27:05 <johnbelamaric> carl_baldwin: yes! I think the link above can merge soon too
15:27:05 <pavel_bondar> and plan do some more siple slices from #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153236/
15:27:22 <pavel_bondar> s/siple/simple/
15:27:33 <johnbelamaric> pavel_bondar: so you are going to break it up a bit more?
15:27:37 <carl_baldwin> johnbelamaric: It looks like it has seen some reviews and is a smaller bit to review.
15:28:21 <carl_baldwin> I think this patch is very manageable.  I will review it soon.
15:28:31 <johnbelamaric> carl_baldwin: thanks
15:28:50 <johnbelamaric> carl_baldwin: L1 is coming fast
15:28:52 <pavel_bondar> johnbelamaric: yes, there are still some copy with small modifications code in ipam_backend_mixin and ipam_non_pluggable_backend
15:29:05 <johnbelamaric> pavel_bondar: ok
15:29:07 <pavel_bondar> so plan to create new review from that
15:29:17 <johnbelamaric> makes sense
15:29:43 <johnbelamaric> pavel_bondar: so you were able to get rid of the "associate" step - you updated the ref driver too?
15:30:08 <pavel_bondar> johnbelamaric, right, it works fine without it
15:30:30 <pavel_bondar> I have updated dependent patches with this changes
15:30:42 <johnbelamaric> ok, good
15:31:17 <johnbelamaric> pavel_bondar: so, once you split the patch again, we can push on with the reviews. ETA on that?
15:31:40 <pavel_bondar> ETA for split is tomorrow
15:31:50 <carl_baldwin> This sounds like it is really shaping up.  I will be sure to review 187961 today while I might have you guys available to discuss.  It looks simple enough to merge soon.
15:32:11 <johnbelamaric> carl_baldwin: great!
15:32:12 <carl_baldwin> Hopefully, that will open the door for the others to fall in line tomorrow and after.
15:32:23 <johnbelamaric> :)
15:32:38 <pavel_bondar> carl_baldwin: sounds good!
15:32:44 <carl_baldwin> Feel free to ping me on this to keep the review cycles tight.
15:33:08 <pavel_bondar> carl_baldwin, sure, thanks
15:33:30 <carl_baldwin> Anything else for the meeting?
15:33:40 <johnbelamaric> address scopes?
15:33:54 <johnbelamaric> or you mean for IPAM? I don't think so
15:34:04 <carl_baldwin> #topic Address Scopes
15:34:12 <carl_baldwin> There.
15:34:14 <carl_baldwin> :)
15:34:44 <carl_baldwin> Are there still open questions?
15:35:11 <vikram___> BP looks really cool ;)
15:35:22 <vikram___> Carl: Nice work
15:35:51 <carl_baldwin> vikram___: +1.  I think we found a sweet spot.  Something that can be implemented within the cycle and will provide a nice foundation.
15:36:07 <pc_m> +1
15:36:11 <johnbelamaric> One I think on whether we should allow route leaking between address scopes within Neutron. But maybe that is a follow on
15:36:15 <carl_baldwin> johnbelamaric: How do you feel about the spec?
15:36:18 <vikram___> yes
15:36:48 <johnbelamaric> carl_baldwin: i think it is looking good too. I think we can put route leaking (ie, routing between scopes without NAT) in a later cycle
15:36:52 <carl_baldwin> johnbelamaric: I was thinking not to allow leaking at first.  But, I’m open to discussion.
15:37:11 <johnbelamaric> carl_baldwin: +1 let's keep the scope do-able!
15:37:41 <carl_baldwin> johnbelamaric: I think that VRF work in Linux may help us with that.  But, it is bleeding edge work that isn’t even merged.
15:37:58 <johnbelamaric> carl_baldwin: yeah, who knows when that will happen…
15:38:18 <carl_baldwin> johnbelamaric: Right, I want to keep an eye on it.
15:38:29 <johnbelamaric> carl_baldwin: Ok, +1 from me :)
15:38:37 <carl_baldwin> Ok, I’ll try to get this BP reviewed by the drivers team and approved.
15:39:01 <carl_baldwin> #topic DNS
15:39:15 <carl_baldwin> I’ll give a report on mlavalle ’s behalf.
15:39:46 <carl_baldwin> The BPs to get nova and neutron talking have been updated and are simpler and looking good.
15:40:06 <carl_baldwin> Kiall from designate is taking over the BP to get neutron and designate talking.
15:40:28 <carl_baldwin> mlavalle is beginning to write code.  The momentum is looking good.
15:41:05 <carl_baldwin> That’s all.
15:41:10 <johnbelamaric> sounds like good news
15:41:11 <carl_baldwin> #topic IPv6
15:41:27 <carl_baldwin> HenryG: Are you around?
15:42:01 <carl_baldwin> It was mentioned yesterday that we might want to discuss bug 1460720
15:42:01 <openstack> bug 1460720 in neutron "Add API to set ipv6 gateway" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1460720 - Assigned to Abishek Subramanian (absubram)
15:42:25 <carl_baldwin> There is also the testing effort (bug 1401726)
15:42:25 <openstack> bug 1401726 in tempest "Tempest IPv6 scenario tests use IPv4 and floating IPs to connect and test" [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1401726 - Assigned to Sean M. Collins (scollins)
15:43:57 <carl_baldwin> Anyone around?
15:44:27 * haleyb is lurking
15:44:44 <carl_baldwin> Okay.  Will bump it to another week or discuss offline.
15:45:22 <carl_baldwin> #topic ML3
15:45:49 <haleyb> i only know of the first bug - ipv6_gateway api support, which i talked to abishek at summit about, seems like a good step
15:46:20 <carl_baldwin> I guess maybe we were looking to talk ML3 in a later meeting.
15:46:28 <carl_baldwin> #topic Open Discussion
15:46:38 <carl_baldwin> Any other topics?
15:47:07 <pcarver> I'm planning to organize my thoughts on ML3 but haven't yet
15:47:23 <pcarver> Armando has given me some good input to think about
15:47:27 <carl_baldwin> pcarver: Ah, you did make it.  Good to see you.  I wasn’t sure what your nick was.
15:47:52 <pcarver> yeah, sorry. Wasn't watching the whole meeting, just checking occasionally
15:48:14 <carl_baldwin> pcarver: Thanks for the update.  I have seen your ML post and I plan to respond as soon as I get a minute.
15:48:15 <john-davidge> carl_baldwin: New prefix delegation patchset is up to address your review comments https://review.openstack.org/#/c/158697
15:48:36 <john-davidge> Hopefully it captures everything. Currently evaluating what extra testing the new pd classes need
15:48:45 <pcarver> So I know I've got L3 routing problems, but I want to structure a writeup that's not specific to just me
15:49:02 <carl_baldwin> john-davidge: ack.
15:49:18 <pcarver> by L3 routing problems, I mean performance specifically, high bandwidth, high PPS, low latency
15:49:43 <carl_baldwin> pcarver: understood
15:52:13 <carl_baldwin> I did forget to mention the “network segments” topic.  I removed “routing networks” and replaced it with this.
15:52:32 <carl_baldwin> I don’t know what the chances are for making Liberty with it (if any) but it is something I’m thinking about.
15:53:55 <carl_baldwin> Attempt to find common ground between https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1458890 and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/172244/
15:53:55 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1458890 in neutron "Add segment support to Neutron" [Undecided,Confirmed]
15:54:06 <carl_baldwin> Anyway, just FYI.
15:54:23 <carl_baldwin> Last call for other topics before closing the meeting
15:56:08 <carl_baldwin> Bye.  Thanks to everyone.
15:56:10 <carl_baldwin> #endmeeting