17:02:07 <cathy_> #startmeeting service_chaining
17:02:08 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Feb 11 17:02:07 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is cathy_. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:02:09 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
17:02:12 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'service_chaining'
17:02:18 <cathy_> hi everyone
17:02:21 <prithiv> hi
17:02:21 <LouisF> hi
17:02:39 <johnsom> o/
17:02:40 <cathy_> sorry I am a little late
17:03:12 <cathy_> I see prithiv LouisF johnsom. Anyone else?
17:04:41 <LouisF> i don't see vikram
17:04:48 <cathy_> any topic you have in mind for today's discussion?
17:05:03 <sridhar_ram> cathy_: I'm here as well, I've some question on ODL support and timeline
17:05:18 <cathy_> sridhar_ram: hi
17:05:26 <johnsom> cathy_ You asked last week about OVN/dragonflow.  I asked around our group and I found that there is more interest here in OVN at the moment.
17:05:45 <cathy_> johnsom: thanks for the info!
17:06:17 <cathy_> Yes, I think we should consider integration of newtroking-sfc with OVN in our second phase
17:07:08 <cathy_> Some of us have started to investigate what we need to do for integration with OVN.
17:07:23 <LouisF> johnsom: has there been any work to extend ovn to support sfc?
17:07:54 <johnsom> LouisF Sorry, I don't know.  Personally I have not explored this space much.
17:08:30 <LouisF> johnsom: thx
17:09:03 <cathy_> sridhar_ram: please go ahead with your questions
17:09:09 <sridhar_ram> cathy_: sure..
17:09:43 <sridhar_ram> cathy_: regarding neutron-sfc's ODL support.. I'd like to know who owns this piece in the neutron, is anyone active looking into it ?
17:10:57 <cathy_> sridhar_ram: Integration of SDN controllers with networking-sfc is also something we will consider in our second phase. OVN is one of the controller, ODL too.
17:11:47 <sridhar_ram> cathy_: how does your timeline looks ? second phase == mid-mitaka  / newton ?
17:11:56 <cathy_> pcarver originally proposed this work item.
17:12:41 <sridhar_ram> the context for this question, as you know, is possible integration of Tacker with neutron-sfc and still bring in ODL support
17:12:46 <cathy_> I am afraid that we will not be able to get that done in mitaka timeline. second phase means after mitaka release.
17:12:59 <cathy_> Sure, that is possible
17:13:15 <cathy_> , just the timeline might be after mitaka release cycle.
17:14:06 <sridhar_ram> cathy_: okay.. I'm trying to explore an option where Tacker can avoid going directly to ODL instead flow thru' neutron-sfc
17:14:38 <sridhar_ram> there is tremendous interest in OPNFV / ODL community to expose their SFC features to VNF Manager like Tacker
17:14:55 <sridhar_ram> we need to enable them.. sooner the better
17:15:10 <cathy_> sridhar_ram: I think that is the right way to go since networking-sfc will integrate with different SDN Controllers. ONOS Controller integration with networking-sfc is already completed.
17:15:23 <cathy_> ODL controller can be done in a similar way
17:15:36 <sridhar_ram> cathy_: ONOS has SFC support ?
17:15:43 <cathy_> sridhar_ram: yes
17:16:04 <sridhar_ram> cathy_: who did that ? any idea about the effort involved ?
17:16:32 <cathy_> There is an ONOS driver plug into networking-sfc's southbound common driver interface
17:16:57 <cathy_> sridhar_ram: vikram and mohan etc. did it.
17:17:11 <sridhar_ram> that's quite promising ...
17:17:21 <cathy_> I can check with vikram about the effort and get back to you later
17:17:31 <LouisF> sridhar_ram: https://github.com/openstack/networking-onos
17:17:50 <cathy_> LouisF: thanks for posting the link
17:18:32 <sridhar_ram> LouisF: thanks. will look into that.. qq, is that specific SFC or a ONOS mech driver ?
17:18:33 <cathy_> pcarver: are you there?
17:19:02 <LouisF> sridhar_ram: that is networking-sfc to onos driver
17:19:18 <mohankumar> srithar_ram :  https://github.com/openstack/networking-onos/tree/master/networking_onos/services/sfc
17:19:18 <sridhar_ram> LouisF: sounds good
17:19:42 <LouisF> mohankumar: thx
17:19:50 <sridhar_ram> cathy_: here is one line of thought.. tacker has some code to talk to ODL SFC.. we can take that as a seed and somehow speed up neutron-sfc ODL integration .. that would be awesom
17:20:14 <LouisF> sridhar_ram: the networking-sfc to odl driver would be similar
17:20:25 <mohankumar> LouisF : yes
17:20:32 <sridhar_ram> LouisF: sure, make sense...
17:21:07 <LouisF> mohankumar: that onos driver has been working and tested for some time - right?
17:21:23 <mohankumar> LouisF : yes
17:21:24 <sridhar_ram> cathy_: just for the record, tacker doesn't have any preference to go directly to ODL, we prefer to use neutron-sfc for all backends
17:22:39 <cathy_> sridhar_ram: OK, I think Tacker should remove the direct interface to ODL, otherwise there are two paths to ODL in Tacker which is confusing and also not compliant with general Neutron architecture
17:23:30 <sridhar_ram> sridhar_ram: overall agree, it was just the we were cooking at the same time.. the good news is tacker --> odl-sfc code hasn't landed
17:24:12 <cathy_> sridhar_ram: I see
17:24:27 <sridhar_ram> cathy_: so, there is some wiggle room...
17:24:42 <cathy_> sridhar_ram: :-)
17:24:50 <mohankumar> sridhar_ram:  just want to know ODL already supports SFC ? i  had same thought some weeks before too
17:25:00 <mohankumar> https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Service_Function_Chaining:Main
17:25:03 <sridhar_ram> cathy_: ... if we can speed up ODL work here, perhaps using the WIP code already in Tacker we all go home happy :)
17:25:15 <cathy_> mohankumar: no yet
17:25:31 <cathy_> mohankumar: we will add a ODL driver to integrate with networking-sfc
17:25:32 <sridhar_ram> mohankumar: Yes, ODL has quite elaborate support for SFC
17:25:57 <mohankumar> sridhar_ram: Ahh .. ok
17:26:20 <sridhar_ram> mohankumar: ODL-SFC is a fairly active group for last many year.. use to lot of GBP, now we have non-GBP sfc options
17:26:45 <sridhar_ram> cathy_: fyi, ODL now has "netvirtsfc" support .. so no need for GBP to do SFC
17:27:10 <sridhar_ram> *use to do lot using GBP
17:27:23 <cathy_> sridhar_ram: I will take a look at the non-GBP option
17:28:23 <sridhar_ram> cathy_: I'd request if your and this team help to get ODL sooner.. !
17:28:54 <cathy_> sridhar_ram: will try our best:-)
17:29:07 <sridhar_ram> cathy_: thanks..
17:29:30 <cathy_> Regarding openstack-manual int the networking guide, I think we need to add networking-sfc there.
17:29:47 <cathy_> johnsom: what do you think?
17:30:58 <cathy_> johnsom: AFAIK you have been working on other Neutron subprojects. Do the other subprojects update the openstack-manual?
17:31:46 <cathy_> LouisF: mohankumar do you think we should updtae that manual?
17:32:39 <mohankumar> cathy_ ,  we may need to update ..but  not sure
17:33:16 <cathy_> prithiv: any idea?
17:33:34 <mohankumar> does any documentation team will support us to add ?
17:34:02 <johnsom> cathy_ Sorry, stepped away.  Yes, typically the neutron project teams submit the manual updates
17:34:13 <cathy_> mohankumar: not sure.
17:34:16 <johnsom> At least the advanced services I work on do.
17:34:34 <LouisF> cathy_: we see where text needs to get added
17:34:56 <LouisF> cathy_: and engage with the doc teams
17:35:31 <cathy_> johnsom: thanks for the info. I think we need to submit the update patch ourselves or shall we ask the documentation team to do this?
17:36:06 <johnsom> We submit the patches, they correct us...  grin
17:36:19 <cathy_> johnsom: Ok, thanks.
17:37:55 <cathy_> We got request on doing a release of networking-sfc based on liberty code base. IS there any back porting rule saying we should not do this way?
17:38:39 <cathy_> johnsom: LouisF mohankumar any idea on this?
17:38:56 <mohankumar> cathy_ :   no idea
17:39:30 <johnsom> There are rules about back porting, there is a doc somewhere on the wiki.  Let me see if I can find it for you.
17:39:53 <johnsom> cathy_ Some doc examples from our team: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/226599/ https://review.openstack.org/224929
17:40:52 <johnsom> cathy_ This page talks to backport guidelines: http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html
17:41:27 <cathy_> johnsom: thanks. I remember reading this before. But it seems it applies to projects that already delivered a liberty release before. Anyway I will take a look at these. Thanks!
17:41:36 <johnsom> Yes, trye
17:41:38 <johnsom> true
17:42:18 <johnsom> I guess you could do a local "stable/liberty" branch if it doesn't require changes to the other projects
17:42:39 <johnsom> It would be a bit odd though.
17:42:48 <cathy_> johnsom: OK, thanks. that is in line with my thought.
17:42:52 <LouisF> johnsom: we have a stable/liberty branch in the repo
17:43:23 <cathy_> it does not require changes to other projects, so we should be Ok
17:44:11 <johnsom> So by release you were talking about a pypi release?  If you already have a stable/liberty you must have tagged that already.
17:44:49 <cathy_> I assume that it is not against the backport rules if networking-sfc does a first release on Liberty code base. johnsom what do you think?
17:45:00 <cathy_> johnsom: yes, pypi release
17:45:13 <johnsom> Oh, ok.  Yeah, no problem there
17:45:28 <cathy_> johnsom: great, thanks for the info!
17:45:47 <cathy_> That's all from my side.
17:47:31 <cathy_> starting from next meeting, we will start discussing new features planned for second phase.
17:47:53 <cathy_> If no other topic, I will end today's meeting early.
17:48:04 <cathy_> bye everyone
17:48:06 <LouisF> ok bye
17:49:02 <cathy_> igordcard: you joined when we will end the meeting:-)
17:49:17 <cathy_> #endmeeting