15:03:30 <Swami> #startmeeting Distributed_virtual_router
15:03:31 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Jan 15 15:03:30 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is Swami. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:03:32 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:03:34 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'distributed_virtual_router'
15:04:09 <Swami> #topic agenda
15:04:27 <Swami> Go over safchain's proposal.
15:04:35 <Swami> Discuss about the API
15:04:41 <Swami> Next steps
15:05:22 <Swami> safchain: Thanks for your email response and the picture that helped me to understand some of your design considerations.
15:07:10 <Swami> safchain: I have a question on your east-west router? Do you have a minute to discuss about it.
15:07:55 <safchain> Swami, yes
15:09:05 <Swami> safchain: In your east-west router, you have mentoned it is still generated by the VRRP. So my understanding is the East-West router will reside within the Network Node or will it be distributed across the compute nodes.
15:09:14 <Swami> hemanthravi:hi
15:09:25 <hemanthravi> swami: hi
15:09:54 <safchain> Swami, could be on network nodes, but could be one specific network nodes for the east-west
15:10:02 <safchain> s/one/on/
15:10:34 <safchain> Swami, since no need to be connected to an external network
15:11:08 <Swami> safchain: Yes in this case your east-west routers are normal regular routers that we have today without external connectivity
15:11:39 <safchain> Swami, with vrrp added
15:11:48 <safchain> Swami, but yes
15:12:03 <hemanthravi> shouldn't east-west be done without the network node always for DVR
15:12:19 <Swami> safchain: Why should the east west routers know about the vrrp, is it for failover.
15:12:36 <safchain> Swami, yes
15:12:53 <Swami> hemanthravi: sorry for the confussion, I am currently discussing safchain's proposal where he supports only the North-South
15:13:37 <hemanthravi> ok
15:13:40 <Swami> hemanthravi: his proposal should be a link in our google doc at the end of the document.
15:14:21 <safchain> I'm going to update the link not sure the link at the bottom is the good one
15:14:51 <Swami> safchain; yes go ahead and update with your latest picture and the additional information that you added.
15:15:28 <Swami> safchain: How many network nodes will be required in your design, is it just one or we can have as many network nodes as possible.
15:16:12 <safchain> Swami, many as possible
15:16:40 <Swami> safchain: Will you be providing HA for all the nodes
15:17:24 <safchain> Swami, for north-south without floating ip yes, but for north-south when a vm has a floating ip, no
15:17:30 <Swami> safchain: In other words, will each network node have a HA pair or there will be only one HA pair and it will substitute for the failed one in the pool.
15:18:27 <safchain> Swami, virtual routers are distributed on networks nodes, each network node could host master or slave vrouter
15:19:28 <safchain> Swami, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ps8Oc-mNcJXdOwAcor3hzoMBS_5zeTQUBbvX9QWx50g/edit
15:19:44 <Swami> safchain: But you mentioned for north-south when a vm has a floating ip there will not be "HA" . Is that right.
15:19:56 <safchain> and https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1iLWlHbUfWNaXpitXU-5xnk4kUi6_V6aS94YZWgYFxX8/edit
15:20:31 <Swami> safchain: Can you also add the other picture you sent to me yesterday in to the same document.
15:21:12 <safchain> Swami, yes no need HA in that case (floating ip), since if the compute node fails, the VM fails too
15:21:29 <safchain> Swami, yes I'll add the picture
15:21:29 <Swami> safchain: Ok got it.
15:22:03 <Swami> safchain: Thanks for the update.
15:22:33 <safchain> Swami, just added the picture at the end of the doc
15:22:44 <Swami> safchain: Thanks
15:22:56 <Swami> #topic API
15:23:34 <Swami> safchain: For the vrrp are you proposing any new api for the router.
15:23:59 <safchain> Swami, no new api, just a new parameter in the config file of neutron
15:24:20 <safchain> Swami, in the l3 config file too
15:24:38 <Swami> safchain: In the summit you had mentioned that the router will have a type=vrrp, is that still true.
15:25:23 <safchain> Swami, that was discussed during the last summit, yes we have changed this point to use only a parameter in the config
15:25:43 <Swami> safchain: yes thanks for the clarification.
15:25:46 <safchain> Swami, The goal is to hide HA stuff for the user
15:25:58 <Swami> safchain: Yes you are right.
15:26:46 <safchain> Swami, propably network optimisation too, east-west/north-south ?
15:27:14 <Swami> safchain: The problem that we are facing in our proposal is the "API" change. Since we do support DVR for east-west and for north-south, there is no way to distinguish between the two types of routers.
15:28:13 <Swami> The only way that we can distinguish is by providing the "--distributed" flag in the router command.
15:28:18 <safchain> Swami, one is connected to an external network, and the other one is only connected to private networks
15:29:18 <Swami> safchain: Yes that would work in your proposal, if we split the SNAT from the floating ip. In our design proposal we have external network supported on all routers if required.
15:29:20 <safchain> Swami, the scheduler could distinguish the agent, and schedule/reschedule routers on the right agent
15:31:50 <Swami> safchain: Yes I thought through the process, it would work in your design because you would associate a float router to a float agent through the schedular.
15:33:10 <Swami> safchain: In our case the schedular first schedules the router as DVR and then when we associate an external network, its property will now change from East-West DVR to north south.
15:35:01 <Swami> Folks I might have a hard stop for this meeting at 7.45, since I have another meeting.
15:35:45 <Swami> safchain: When do we want to target our work for Icehouse.
15:37:32 <Swami> safchain:Did you look at the "Provider router" blueprint, will that have any impact on our design.
15:37:59 <safchain> Swami, I currently working on HA, already submitting WIP patches I hope we will have it on Icehouse, no didn't look at it
15:38:03 <safchain> Swami, I will
15:38:35 <Swami> safchain: So your HA will go through Icehouse 3.
15:38:47 <safchain> Swami, yes I hope
15:38:56 <Swami> #topic Open Discussion
15:39:32 <Swami> If anyone have not gone through the Provider router blueprint please go through it.
15:40:20 <Swami> hemanthravi: Do you have any questions?
15:41:39 <Swami> If you folks have any other questions please feel free to send me an email.
15:42:44 <hemanthravi> swami: need to go through the docs again, will send an email
15:42:50 <Swami> safchain: Next week I am planning to have a broader proposal review from the OpenStack community, so if you can add any details to your doc, make sure you add that and we can go over.
15:43:05 <Swami> Thanks everyone for joining the meeting.
15:43:08 <Swami> see you next week.
15:43:21 <hemanthravi> swami: do you still have the mon meeting.
15:43:22 <Swami> bye
15:43:46 <Swami> hemanthravi: no I temporarily suspended the monday meeting since the attendance was very low.
15:44:14 <Swami> If you need to chat with me on monday I am available on IRC and you can catch me on private chat.
15:44:42 <Swami> #endmeeting