17:04:06 <yamahata> #startmeeting servicevm-device-manager
17:04:07 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Feb 18 17:04:06 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is yamahata. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:04:09 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
17:04:11 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'servicevm_device_manager'
17:04:48 <s3wong> hello
17:04:56 <yamahata> s3wong: hello
17:05:32 <yamahata> seems only two.
17:05:40 <yamahata> #topic Announcement
17:05:53 <s3wong> yamahata: bobmel is online, but he hasn't been attending Tacker meetings for a while
17:05:54 <yamahata> summit topic vote has started
17:06:24 <yamahata> #link https://www.openstack.org/vote-vancouver/
17:06:27 <SridharRamaswamy> hi
17:06:34 <yamahata> SridharRamaswamy: hi
17:06:53 <yamahata> our session link is https://www.openstack.org/vote-vancouver/presentation/tacker-virtual-network-function-life-cycle-management-for-openstack
17:06:56 <yamahata> #link https://www.openstack.org/vote-vancouver/presentation/tacker-virtual-network-function-life-cycle-management-for-openstack
17:06:57 <s3wong> SridharRamaswamy: hello
17:07:07 <SridharRamaswamy> s3wong: hi
17:08:09 <yamahata> any other announcement?
17:08:26 <s3wong> yamahata: no
17:08:44 <yamahata> #topic Open Discussion
17:08:55 <yamahata> #chair s3wong SridharRamaswamy
17:08:57 <openstack> Current chairs: SridharRamaswamy s3wong yamahata
17:09:15 <s3wong> yamahata: I would like to ask --- you have a section on oslo proxy, what is the intent of oslo proxy for Tacker?
17:10:30 <yamahata> s3wong: it was proposed for Juno cycle, but was rejected by oslo project.
17:10:48 <s3wong> yamahata: was the intention health check on VM?
17:10:50 <yamahata> So it's suspended.
17:11:20 <yamahata> the intention is to introduce side communication channel instead of provide net.
17:11:57 <yamahata> communication between openstack servers and service inside VM.
17:12:26 <s3wong> yamahata: so this was supposed to run in the context of the VM?
17:12:45 <yamahata> Yes.
17:13:40 <s3wong> yamahata: interesting, not in hypervisor / host-OS context like all the other agents then
17:14:17 <yamahata> Yea, but it was though of backdoor and big security flaw. So it was rejected.
17:14:35 <s3wong> yamahata: OK
17:15:07 <s3wong> yamahata: what communication did you expect Tacker to have with service VM besides health monitoring?
17:16:44 <SridharRamaswamy> folks - sorry got disconnected :(
17:16:46 <yamahata> control communication. push/pull configuration/event notification
17:18:15 <s3wong> yamahata: OK. Since Tacker manages the VMs, we need to identify which set of config to push in case we restart a VM
17:19:03 <SridharRamaswamy> s3wong: yamahata: are we are imagining a "friendly" ServiceVM where you can put tacker-agent in ?
17:19:21 <SridharRamaswamy> to do these health / config push & pull ?
17:19:55 <s3wong> SridharRamaswamy: is that even possible? that we ask the service VM to include tacker-agent during launch?
17:20:13 <yamahata> Right.
17:20:28 <yamahata> It's possible with providernet now.
17:20:37 <s3wong> or can we have Tacker agent in hypervisor / host OS to do these?
17:20:43 <SridharRamaswamy> No. Mostly likely not and thats what we need to design for...
17:21:14 <s3wong> yamahata: how is that accomplished with providernet?
17:22:10 <yamahata> We can create providernet which is connected openstack management network.
17:22:40 <yamahata> Then openstack servers and VMs can communicate freely by assigning the providernet to VMs.
17:22:58 <yamahata> I heard some cloud providers do so.
17:23:46 <s3wong> yamahata: Tacker has management interface abstraction --- so previously Tacker just creates such mgmt intf without plugging it into some mgmt network?
17:25:30 <yamahata> we need to write driver to connect the intf into mgmt network.
17:25:54 <s3wong> yamahata: but the mgmt network needs to be created outside of Tacker?
17:26:28 <yamahata> s3wong: Right.
17:27:02 <s3wong> yamahata: OK
17:27:41 <SridharRamaswamy> what is the relation of this providernet to the actual tenant network ? At the end the traffic from tenant VMs need to be steered to one of these providernet towards the ServiceVM
17:28:06 <SridharRamaswamy> I'd assume that would be different from the tacker-mgmt-network
17:29:19 <s3wong> SridharRamaswamy: sounds like yamahata was saying Tacker should leverage provider-net as the mgmt network for all Tacker managed VMs
17:30:16 <yamahata> s3wong: exactly.
17:30:58 <s3wong> yamahata: is it possible that Tacker an auto-create such provider-net? to ease up operators' work?
17:31:31 <yamahata> With some information from admin, it's quite possible.
17:32:38 <s3wong> yamahata: OK
17:33:35 <s3wong> yamahata, SridharRamaswamy: as mentioned in the email, my friend and I will be spending some 20% of time on Tacker, so we will be looking for things to do to shape Tacker into VNF Manager
17:33:52 <SridharRamaswamy> Sorry, I missed the part why we are using provide-net ... i've always seen scenarios where ServiceVMs have it own mgmt-network
17:34:07 <SridharRamaswamy> s3wong: +2
17:34:18 <yamahata> s3wong: +2. I'm surely willing to help
17:34:33 <SridharRamaswamy> same here
17:35:03 <s3wong> SridharRamaswamy: yeah... sounds like this new provider-net unifies the VM mgmt network interface
17:35:51 <s3wong> yamahata: that said, so now all VMs would be launched with a vport connecting to the provider-net, in addition to having another vport connecting to Neutron network?
17:36:10 <yamahata> Yes.
17:36:25 <s3wong> yamahata: interesting, so this is a Nova thing then?
17:37:12 <yamahata> Right. That's the reason why a driver which talks to nova is needed.
17:37:25 <s3wong> yamahata: I see
17:37:30 <s3wong> yamahata: good to know
17:39:08 <s3wong> we can certainly try this as the communication channel between Tacker and VMs
17:40:47 <yamahata> any other topics?
17:40:54 <s3wong> yamahata: that
17:40:57 <s3wong> that's it for me
17:41:27 <SridharRamaswamy> regarding the talk, are we going to demo some of these concepts ?
17:41:49 <s3wong> SridharRamaswamy: well, we will know if our talk will be voted in in two week :-)
17:42:09 <s3wong> SridharRamaswamy: so, if it is, then we can meet f2f to see if and what we want to demo
17:42:20 <yamahata> we will see. I'll afraid after it's accepted...
17:42:40 <yamahata> s3wong: +1
17:42:47 <s3wong> SridharRamaswamy, yamahata: until then, we march along to build Tacker without worrying too much about the talk first :-)
17:44:22 <yamahata> okay, thank you everybody.
17:44:27 <s3wong> Thanks!
17:44:28 <yamahata> let's vote for summit talk.
17:44:43 <yamahata> #endmeeting