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