15:00:32 <mlavalle> #startmeeting neutron_l3
15:00:32 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Nov 12 15:00:32 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is mlavalle. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:33 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:00:35 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'neutron_l3'
15:01:19 <mlavalle> good mrning everybody, who is here today?
15:01:20 <rsxin> help
15:01:24 <haleyb> hi
15:01:27 <rsxin> hi
15:01:31 <regXboi> moo
15:01:34 <rsxin> #info
15:01:34 <carl_baldwin> Hi
15:01:38 <tidwellr1> hi
15:01:40 <rsxin> #HELP
15:01:41 <mlavalle> agenda for today is https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Neutron-L3-Subteam#Agenda
15:02:01 <mlavalle> #topic Annoucements
15:02:32 <mlavalle> Mitaka-1 is approaching fast. It is Decmber 3rd if I remember correctly
15:02:57 <carl_baldwin> Yikes
15:03:09 <mlavalle> any other annoucements from the team?
15:03:48 <mlavalle> ok, moving on, let's review bugs
15:03:57 <mlavalle> #topic Bugs
15:04:31 <mlavalle> we have a new bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1478100
15:04:31 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1478100 in neutron "DHCP agent scheduler can schedule dnsmasq to an agent without reachability to the network its supposed to serve" [High,In progress] - Assigned to Cedric Brandily (cbrandily)
15:05:17 <mlavalle> it is assigned to ZZelle (Cedric)
15:05:36 <mlavalle> I don't see him on-line today. No patchset has been submitted yet
15:06:06 <mlavalle> I will monitor progress and follow up with Cedric
15:06:10 <amuller> he was online earlier
15:06:13 <amuller> there is a patch for that
15:06:24 <amuller> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/205631/
15:06:29 <mlavalle> amuller: thanks!
15:06:39 <mlavalle> I will update the bug
15:07:31 <mlavalle> any ational comments amuller?
15:07:36 <amuller> nope!
15:07:57 <mlavalle> thanks for working on this!
15:08:15 <mlavalle> next up is https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1494351
15:08:15 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1494351 in neutron "Observed StaleDataError in gate-neutron-dsvm-api tests if reference IPAM driver is used" [High,In progress] - Assigned to Pavel Bondar (pasha117)
15:08:59 <mlavalle> pavel_bondar has been working on a fix https://review.openstack.org/#/c/223123/
15:09:25 <mlavalle> it is awaiting reviews from cores. It has several +1's since last week
15:09:43 <mlavalle> so I encourage cores to take a look
15:10:04 <carl_baldwin> Sorry I have not yet finished review of it.  I have draft comments but need to wrap it up today.
15:10:43 <mlavalle> thanks to haleyb. I pinged him last nigh and he reviewed it
15:11:25 <mlavalle> pavel_bondar also closed a bug last week. So Those are all the bugs I found for today's meeting
15:11:26 <haleyb> yeah, i didn't +2 because some of that sql code is out of my comfort zone, need to get better at it
15:11:50 <mlavalle> carl_baldwin: thanks for taking the time today
15:12:00 <carl_baldwin> haleyb: It is a pretty heavy patch to review from that perspective.
15:12:21 <mlavalle> any bugs that I missed from the team?
15:13:04 <mlavalle> ok, let's move on
15:13:23 <mlavalle> #topic Routed Network Segments
15:13:33 <mlavalle> carl_baldwin: you are up
15:13:51 <carl_baldwin> Hi
15:13:59 <carl_baldwin> I've been working on some code.
15:14:19 <carl_baldwin> I got the basic CRUD up for IpNetwork and I've been working on adding relationships.
15:14:32 <carl_baldwin> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/242270/
15:14:46 <carl_baldwin> I'm almost done with an update to add those.
15:14:58 <carl_baldwin> Hopefully today.  I just have a few UTs to write.
15:15:17 <carl_baldwin> We also need a patch started for adding host <-> Network mapping.
15:15:30 <carl_baldwin> Any volunteers?
15:16:05 * tidwellr1 hears crickets
15:16:09 <mlavalle> carl_baldwin: if a slow start is possible, I can help. I want to keep an eye on wrapping up DNS
15:16:13 <tidwellr1> I'm happy to help
15:16:17 * regXboi notes loud crickets
15:16:31 <carl_baldwin> tidwellr1: mlavalle:  Thanks.
15:16:54 <carl_baldwin> tidwellr1: Would it be too much with your BGP work to start a host mapping patch?  It needs some CRUD and DB.
15:17:12 <tidwellr1> not at all
15:17:19 <carl_baldwin> tidwellr1: I just know you're pretty good at that stuff by now.  :)
15:17:27 <tidwellr1> I can't crank on BGP 24/7
15:17:36 <tidwellr1> need to walk away from it at times
15:18:05 <rsxin> I'm happy to help on Routed Network Segments topic
15:18:09 <carl_baldwin> I'm also thinking that we need to figure out if a Port can exist without a Network.  Some have called this late binding.
15:18:18 <carl_baldwin> tidwellr1: understood
15:19:25 <carl_baldwin> rsxin: Hi, have you had a chance to review the spec and patch?
15:19:35 <rsxin> sure
15:19:42 <rsxin> I will do tomorrow
15:20:09 <rsxin> it's night local time now, so tomorrow is ok?
15:20:23 <carl_baldwin> rsxin: Please include your IRC nick somewhere on there so that I can associate it with your comments.
15:20:28 <carl_baldwin> rsxin: Tomorrow is great.
15:20:52 <carl_baldwin> rsxin: And welcome, it is good to meet you.  I don't think we've met before (unless I just don't recognize your nick)
15:21:03 <rsxin> I will put my irc name on openstack account
15:21:32 <rsxin> yes, I am watch neutron for long time, but not join it
15:21:42 <rsxin> I want to be involved
15:22:05 <haleyb> rsxin: can you set your Real Name in irc as well?
15:22:43 <rsxin> sure
15:22:46 <carl_baldwin> rsxin: Great.  Adding review comments to interesting patches and participating in IRC is usually the best place to start!
15:23:54 <mlavalle> rsxin: thanks for joining the meeting and the group!
15:23:56 <carl_baldwin> Well, exploring how the late binding thing could work and doing the host / network mapping are the things that I'm pushing now.
15:24:16 <carl_baldwin> That is all.
15:24:33 <mlavalle> any more questions for carl_baldwin?
15:24:55 <mlavalle> ok, let's move on
15:25:04 <carl_baldwin> Thanks!
15:25:19 <mlavalle> #topic BGP Dynamic Routing
15:25:35 <mlavalle> tidwellr1, vikram: you are up
15:26:18 <Na_> i have one question, in bp, it mentions associating router to bgp speaker, but you have not implemented it right?
15:26:23 <carl_baldwin> vikram won't be around for a couple of weeks.  I wish him and his family the best.
15:26:46 <tidwellr1> yes, absolutely a rough time
15:26:55 <mlavalle> carl_baldwin: thanks for the clarification
15:27:28 <tidwellr1> Na_: routers are not associated with bgp_speaker
15:27:47 <tidwellr1> Na_: which BP are you looking at?
15:27:52 <Na_> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/125401/21/specs/liberty/bgp-dynamic-routing.rst
15:27:55 <Na_> it mentions here
15:28:20 <Na_> i think this is the latest one, it is for liberty
15:29:01 <tidwellr1> Na_: we've evolved from this, so it is dated
15:29:06 <Na_> 4. Associate a ``Router`` to a ``BGPSpeaker``. That means the router will have dynamic routing capabilities that will let it advertise its routes
15:29:24 <tidwellr1> we have a devref going here https://review.openstack.org/#/c/196452/
15:29:45 <tidwellr1> Na_: the devref is probably more accurate
15:30:08 <Na_> ok, thanks
15:30:44 <tidwellr1> right now I'm pushing some changes through the review chain that change some code structure
15:31:27 <carl_baldwin> tidwellr1: Should reviewers start hitting the chain?
15:31:30 <tidwellr1> I have 1 last patch set to finish with, then I'll be moving through with address scope awareness and CLI polish, then we can really hit it with reviews
15:31:32 <Na_> tidwellr1: bgp dynamic routing has many patches, some have conflicts
15:32:12 <tidwellr1> Na_: I've resolved the conflicts except with this last review
15:32:15 <Na_> which patch includes all the code changes?
15:33:04 <tidwellr1> Na_: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/216994/ is the last in the review chain, but it's in conflict and needs a re-spin anyway
15:33:40 <Na_> tidwellr1: thanks
15:33:48 <Na_> what about the vpn plan?
15:34:00 <tidwellr1> Na_: not for Mitka
15:34:10 <Na_> have you started the design?
15:34:14 <tidwellr1> Na_: nope
15:34:32 <tidwellr1> Na_: this needs to all shake out and merge first imho
15:35:09 <tidwellr1> anyway, we're not ready to hit BGP with reviews yet, but getting close
15:35:21 <Na_> so have to wait for long time for vpn
15:36:03 <Na_> why not add vpn in mitka?
15:36:22 <tidwellr1> Na_: there's just not time in Mitaka, if you have ideas feel free to look at this work and file an RFE
15:36:31 <carl_baldwin> tidwellr1: thanks.  Ping us as soon as they're ready
15:36:34 <Na_> if less of resource, i think you can get volunter
15:37:12 <Na_> Mickey has filed RFE, but no response yet
15:37:35 <tidwellr1> Na_: do you have a link?
15:37:57 <Na_> yes, give me 1 min
15:38:06 * tidwellr1 is done after this btw
15:39:00 <tidwellr1> mlavalle: we can move on
15:39:08 <mlavalle> tidwellr1: thanks!
15:39:09 * pavel_bondar just figured out that meeting is in progress, catching up with log
15:39:18 <mlavalle> moving on
15:39:26 <mlavalle> #topic DNS
15:39:35 <Na_> https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1509431
15:39:36 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1509431 in neutron "Enhance BGP Dynamic Routing with L2VPN/L3VPN support" [Undecided,New]
15:39:44 <Na_> tidwellr1:https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1509431
15:40:04 <mlavalle> thanks Na_ we'll take a look
15:40:33 <mlavalle> I got https://review.openstack.org/#/c/212213/ to pass Jenkins tests
15:40:53 <mlavalle> and I got several reviews. Working on it
15:41:11 * carl_baldwin adds it back to radar
15:41:32 <mlavalle> I have also been adding the code for ports on provider networks, where we want to make the ip_address public
15:42:20 <mlavalle> the way I am approaching it is that I am going to consider the ip address public if the following conditions are met
15:42:33 <mlavalle> 1) the netwrok has a dns_domain assigned
15:42:44 <mlavalle> 2) the port has a dns_name assigned
15:43:29 <mlavalle> the network has a segment outside of the range assigned to tenant networks. This tells me the network was created explicitely as a provider network
15:43:38 <mlavalle> condition 3^^^^
15:44:40 <mlavalle> I should push the code over the next few days
15:44:58 <mlavalle> and that's all I have today. Thanks for the reviews
15:44:58 <carl_baldwin> mlavalle: Interesting.  Condition 3 is the only thing that sets it apart as "public".  It sounds a little bit heuristicky but I'd have to think about it to be sure.
15:45:45 <mlavalle> ok, let's discuss in channel
15:46:01 <mlavalle> this is what I wanted to trigger, feedback!
15:46:23 <mlavalle> any more questions or comments?
15:46:54 <carl_baldwin> mlavalle: Sounds like progress.  I'll need it to sink it a bit.
15:47:14 <mlavalle> carl_baldwin: thanks. let's move on
15:47:33 <mlavalle> #topic Address Scopes
15:47:55 <carl_baldwin> Hi
15:48:11 <carl_baldwin> I'm looking to get the server-side RPC patches merged.
15:48:48 <tidwellr1> carl-baldwin: what's left to tie up?
15:49:05 <carl_baldwin> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/189948/19
15:49:18 <carl_baldwin> tidwellr1: You've been very good at reviewing them.  Thanks.
15:49:36 <carl_baldwin> The link is where the chain starts.  It is a simple linear chain.
15:49:51 <steve_ruan> hi carl
15:50:02 <carl_baldwin> steve_ruan: hi
15:50:16 <steve_ruan> I have a question how address scope data path work
15:50:27 <steve_ruan> could u spare me some time after this meeting
15:51:43 <carl_baldwin> steve_ruan: Actually today could be kind of difficult.  I'm actually traveling in a bit with my family.  How would Monday do?
15:51:54 * neiljerram is sorry to be late
15:51:55 <steve_ruan> sure
15:52:06 <steve_ruan> I will send u a email
15:52:27 <carl_baldwin> steve_ruan: Thanks.
15:52:43 <johnbelamaric> *has to drop off now*
15:52:54 <carl_baldwin> johnbelamaric: bye
15:52:57 <tidwellr1> carl_baldwin: is this review chain complete ie it contains all the reviews needed to tie off address scopes?
15:53:04 <mlavalle> johnbelamaric: thanks!
15:53:06 <Na_> tidwellr1: if i want to advertise tenant network, the subnets of the tenant network must be in the address scope, right?
15:53:12 <carl_baldwin> tidwellr1: I believe so.
15:53:43 <tidwellr1> carl_baldwin: sweet
15:53:49 <carl_baldwin> tidwellr1: steve_ruan:  It is the data path patch at the end that I have the most concern about.
15:54:34 <steve_ruan> in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/180267/9/specs/liberty/address-scopes.rst
15:54:54 <steve_ruan> networks in same address scope will not use nat
15:55:08 <carl_baldwin> steve_ruan: That is right.
15:55:18 <steve_ruan> if networks connect to different routers, how it happen
15:56:06 <steve_ruan> for example, in ovs, all traffic goto be-ex without nat?
15:56:07 <Na_> carl baldwin: the address scope is significant when multiple tenants share one address scope, right?
15:56:56 <carl_baldwin> steve_ruan: This is a change only to the routers.  No change to the layer 2 stuff.
15:57:17 <carl_baldwin> Na_: yes that is significant.
15:57:21 <Na_> NAT is done in router
15:57:40 <steve_ruan> Have this already in the patch?
15:57:56 <steve_ruan> I will check the patch
15:58:01 <carl_baldwin> steve_ruan: Yes, it is in the final patch in the series.  The one I really need eyeballs on.
15:58:04 <carl_baldwin> steve_ruan: Thanks.
15:58:10 <steve_ruan> thanks
15:58:13 <carl_baldwin> steve_ruan: I'll look for your feedback.
15:58:25 <Na_> carl_baldwin: so do you allow only one tenant use the address scope, not multiple?
15:58:31 <carl_baldwin> mlavalle: We're about out of time.  Was there anything else?
15:58:46 <carl_baldwin> Na_: There are shared address scopes.
15:58:57 <mlavalle> carl_baldwin: nope, let's move on
15:59:26 <mlavalle> thank you all for showing up to the meeting, we are out of time
15:59:39 <johnbelamaric> *is back just in time for the end* :)
15:59:39 <tidwellr1> bye
15:59:43 <johnbelamaric> bye
15:59:50 <mlavalle> #endmeeting