15:00:54 <carl_baldwin> #startmeeting neutron_l3
15:00:54 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Jun 25 15:00:54 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is carl_baldwin. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:56 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:00:59 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'neutron_l3'
15:01:24 <carl_baldwin> #topic Announcements
15:01:40 <carl_baldwin> The mid-cycle is going on as we speak.
15:02:09 <neiljerram> o/
15:02:33 <carl_baldwin> Liberty-1 is pretty much now or close to now.
15:03:14 <carl_baldwin> So, given that a number of us are busy with the mid-cycle, let’s just do Open Discussion and see what comes up.
15:03:20 <carl_baldwin> #topic Open Discussion
15:03:49 <carl_baldwin> hi neiljerram, so far you’re the only one I know is here.  :)
15:03:53 <john-davidge> o/
15:03:57 <neiljerram> Well, if there's nothing else, I'm curious to know how you're doing with the L3 routed stuff
15:04:02 <vikram_> i have few question about address scope and subnetpool association
15:04:17 <neiljerram> carl_baldwin: :0
15:04:27 <neiljerram> carl_baldwin: sorry, meant :)
15:04:33 <john-davidge> I have a small updated on IPv6 PD
15:04:39 <john-davidge> IPv6 PD patches have been swapped around so that the DB chnages will merge first https://review.openstack.org/#/c/158697/
15:04:47 <carl_baldwin> john-davidge: You have the floor.
15:04:50 <john-davidge> I think this makes more sense and should make reviewing much easier
15:05:16 <neiljerram> PD? (sorry for my ignorance)
15:05:37 <john-davidge> a lot is in flux with all the ipam work going in right now so it might be a while until it’s ’stable’ enough, but it’s in a good state now
15:05:49 <john-davidge> neiljerram: Prefix Delegation
15:06:12 <carl_baldwin> john-davidge: Thanks for doing that.  It looks like a reasonably reviewable patch.
15:06:57 <john-davidge> carl_baldwin: Hope so! I don’t expect much attention until after the mid-cycle though, I’m sure everyone is very busy
15:07:22 <john-davidge> This will give me more time to look at splitting up the agent-side chnages further as well
15:08:03 <john-davidge> That’s it from me unless there’s any questions
15:08:12 <vikram_> Hi Carl
15:08:13 <vikram_> Patches about address scope CRUD + cli changes are out
15:08:33 <vikram_> i have few question about address scope and subnetpool association
15:08:36 <carl_baldwin> john-davidge: This is true, it is hard to get reviews in during the mid-cycle.
15:08:41 * carl_baldwin will try though
15:09:14 <john-davidge> carl_baldwin: Thanks, all feedback appreciated
15:09:26 <carl_baldwin> vikram_: Do you have a link to the address scope CRUD patch handy?
15:09:41 <vikram_> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/189741/
15:09:45 <carl_baldwin> vikram_: What questions do you have?
15:09:52 <vikram_> https://review.openstack.org/194635
15:10:28 <vikram_> i was wondering to have a separate CLI for associating addr-scope and subnetpool
15:10:43 <carl_baldwin> vikram_: On the former change, 189741, do you have a handle on the test failures?
15:10:45 <vikram_> not in the create itself
15:11:14 <gsagie> hello
15:11:19 <vikram_> we are checking the failures.. will resolve it soon
15:11:25 <tidwellr> vikram_: I think that association should be made using the subnetpool CLI, if I understand you correctly
15:11:32 <carl_baldwin> vikram_: re: the CLI, how do you suggest the API will look?
15:12:06 <vikram_> neutron-addr-scope-associate --subnetpool xxx
15:12:28 <vikram_> tidwellr: I am even okay with your idea
15:12:35 <carl_baldwin> vikram_: with —address-scope yyy too, right?
15:12:59 <vikram_> yes
15:13:14 <tidwellr> vikram_: I was thinking that address_scope_id is an attribute of a subnetpool, it's just and update to the subnetpool
15:13:38 <vikram_> hmm... i am okay with this idea as well
15:13:57 <vikram_> actually this will be easier :)
15:15:06 <carl_baldwin> +1, I’m okay with it.
15:15:30 <tidwellr> vikram_: Let me backtrack on that.  If you make the association through the address_scope API's it may be easier to check for prefix uniqueness and enforce it
15:15:50 <vikram_> IMHO, it will be good to keep addr-scope create cli independent and not associate it anyother model
15:16:40 <vikram_> tidwellr: +1
15:16:59 <carl_baldwin> I can go either way.
15:17:56 <vikram_> ok..
15:18:34 <vikram_> i will check the pros and cons of each and choose the best one
15:18:58 <vikram_> So all agree not to put it in create cli.. right?
15:19:01 <carl_baldwin> vikram_: +1
15:19:21 <carl_baldwin> Wait, not +1 to last statement yet.  I’m not sure I understand it.
15:19:43 <vikram_> that's all from addr scope.. will fix all the open items by next week
15:20:36 <carl_baldwin> vikram_: Okay, +1 not putting it in create cli.  I had to reread what you typed.
15:20:44 <vikram_> ok
15:21:02 <carl_baldwin> vikram_: Thanks.
15:21:09 <vikram_> i m done :)
15:22:14 <yamahata> Hi. Regarding to ML3, the operational scenario is added to ether pad
15:22:18 <yamahata> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/neutron-modular-l3-router-plugin-use-cases
15:22:21 <carl_baldwin> vikram_: What I consider important about the association is that we don’t allow duplicate addresses across the scope.
15:22:42 <yamahata> Please review and I'll also ping by email.
15:22:57 <vikram_> carl: ok .. will ensure this requirement
15:23:05 <carl_baldwin> yamahata: Thanks.
15:23:09 <carl_baldwin> vikram_: Great.
15:23:39 <johnbelamaric> i think next ipam patch is ready to merge
15:23:42 <johnbelamaric> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/194605/
15:23:51 <pavel_bondar> yes
15:25:08 <carl_baldwin> johnbelamaric: ack
15:29:34 <carl_baldwin> Thanks everyone.  I think we’ll close this meeting for today.
15:30:02 <carl_baldwin> #endmeeting