15:02:29 <Swami> #startmeeting distributed_virtual_router
15:02:30 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Apr 16 15:02:29 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is Swami. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:02:31 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:02:33 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'distributed_virtual_router'
15:02:42 <mrsmith> swami: hi
15:02:46 <Swami> #topic Agenda
15:02:58 <Swami> 1. DVR Progress
15:03:13 <Swami> 2. Gerrit review update
15:03:25 <Swami> 3. L3 Agent Update
15:03:30 <Swami> 4. L2 Agent Update
15:03:42 <Swami> 5. L3 Driver update
15:03:53 <Swami> #topic DVR Progress
15:04:45 <Swami> DVR work is in Progress. East-West is done. We are almost done with the FIP work.
15:05:00 <Rajeev> Swami: time permitting, suggest poll for topics of interest at summit
15:05:00 <Swami> FIP work not complete yet.
15:05:26 <Swami> rajeev: thanks
15:05:56 <Swami> SNAT work will be taken once we finish the FIP work.
15:06:38 <Swami> Last week we gave an update to the Neutron PTL on the DVR Progress to align with the Juno milestones
15:07:04 <Swami> The target is to push all the code before the summit to the gerrit for review.
15:07:20 <Swami> Our target will be Juno milestone 1
15:08:06 <Swami> We wanted to have some testable code in there by Juno milestone 1, so that enough testing will be done to test for stability.
15:08:53 <Swami> Also the discussion that I had with the PTL includes redefining the test infrastructure to have multinode setup to accomodate the DVR test.
15:09:14 <Swami> Hope this helps.
15:09:32 <Swami> #topic Gerrit review update
15:09:49 <Swami> The Plugin code and the L2 Agent code is now in gerrit for review.
15:10:06 <Swami> #link https://review.openstack.org/84223
15:10:16 <Swami> L2 Agent code
15:10:33 <Swami> #link https://review.openstack.org/87730
15:11:07 <Swami> Thanks for the early review comments on the patch posted.
15:11:31 <Swami> Still there are couple of more patches that we will be pushing in the next week.
15:11:50 <Swami> L3 Scheduler code, L3 Agent code and L3 Drivers.
15:12:53 <carl_baldwin> Swami: I find this link to be useful to watch all of the commits:
15:12:54 <Swami> #topic L3 Agent
15:12:55 <carl_baldwin> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/neutron-ovs-dvr,n,z
15:13:21 <Swami> carl: thanks for posting the link
15:13:34 <Swami> mrsmith: can you give an update on the L3 agent
15:13:47 <mrsmith> Swami: yes
15:14:01 <mrsmith> initial merge to icehouse-2 is done
15:14:14 <mrsmith> I am trying to cleanup/resolve the FIP conflicts
15:14:30 <mrsmith> I may end up pushing a subset of the functionality for review
15:14:36 <mrsmith> just for clarity
15:14:53 <mrsmith> but I should be able to push something by next wed
15:15:16 <mrsmith> the refactoring/changes occuring in the FIP area has resulted in more changes for DVR
15:15:53 <Swami> mrsmith: Thanks for your update.
15:16:00 <mrsmith> np
15:16:14 <Swami> vivek:ping
15:16:37 <Swami> #topic L3 Drivers
15:16:52 <Swami> Rajeev where are we with respect to the drivers
15:17:33 <Swami> is rajeev in here.
15:17:43 <Swami> did we lose him
15:17:49 <mrsmith> hmm.. he was there
15:17:50 <Rajeev> swami: all our changes are in the L-3 agent itself
15:17:57 <Swami> that's fine.
15:18:09 <Swami> rajeev: here he is.
15:18:11 <mrsmith> Rajeev: including the change to ip_lib.py?
15:18:18 <mrsmith> want me to push that as well?
15:18:46 <Rajeev> there are a few pieces in ip_lib that I will push it in
15:19:01 <Rajeev> during this week
15:19:03 <Swami> rajeev: mrsmith: thanks
15:19:13 <Swami> sounds good.
15:19:53 <Swami> #topic FIP Gateway issue
15:20:19 <Swami> There was one question that came up in our discussion regarding the FIP behavior today in openstack neutron.
15:20:56 <Swami> So we need the community opinion on this before we proceed.
15:21:34 <Swami> Today in a Centralized router mode, when a FIP is assigned to a VM, any incoming traffic from an External Network uses the FIP IP as the destination IP and the traffic flows to the VM.
15:21:57 <Swami> When the VM responds to the request the traffic also passes through the FIP.
15:23:04 <Swami> But for any normal traffic that initiates from the VM, it uses the default gateway configured in the VM and the traffic flows through the SNAT.
15:23:41 <Swami> When we implement the North-South in a distributed DVR, the Floating IP will not be on the same node as the SNAT and so how do we want this behavior to be.
15:23:43 <carl_baldwin> Swami, for a VM with an associated floating ip that should not be true.
15:24:07 <Rajeev> swami: I agree with Carl, same opinion
15:24:15 <carl_baldwin> Outgoing traffic will always prefer the tip as source ip and not default SNAT address.
15:24:30 <carl_baldwin> s/tip/fip/
15:24:57 <Swami> carl: rajeev: Yesterday I heard this from our internal folks. I can re-confirm this.
15:25:07 <Rajeev> when FIP in place, rules don't allow default SNATing
15:25:17 <Swami> I am not sure if murali or vivek is in this meeting.
15:25:47 <Rajeev> swami: np, we can take it offline.
15:25:47 <Swami> rajeev: carl: thanks for the update.
15:26:00 <carl_baldwin> I'm pretty confident that the iptables rules in the router are structured to alway s source traffic from a fip when associated.
15:26:16 <carl_baldwin> Let me know if you need more technical clarification for your follow-up.
15:26:50 <Swami> Ok, so the agreement here is whatever is the behavior today in Openstack we will follow the same model.
15:27:06 <carl_baldwin> Agreed.  Any other behavior is a bug.
15:27:16 <Swami> Irrespective of centralized or distributed for the FIP>
15:27:27 <carl_baldwin> Right.
15:27:38 <Swami> If I have more information on this "bug", then I will bring it up in the next meeting.
15:28:36 <haleyb> yes, i would agree with carl, fip is preferred
15:29:00 <Swami> haleyb: Thanks for confirming it brian.
15:30:21 <Swami> #topic DVR HowTo wiki
15:31:08 <Swami> For the Neutron Documentation team to get started we are planning to include a "DVR HowTo", so that it would be helpful for the folks who are testing and as well as for the documentation folks.
15:31:34 <Swami> So we will be updating the DVR HowTo wiki on more information.
15:32:12 <Swami> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/DVR/HowTo
15:32:26 <Swami> This is just a template and we will add more content as we progress.
15:32:31 <xuhanp> Swami, that will be really helpful for us to test it too!
15:32:50 <Swami> xuhanp: Yes this is to enable testers.
15:33:26 <Swami> viveknarashimhan: hi
15:33:40 <Swami> #topic L2 Agent Update
15:34:27 <Swami> vivek: are you there.
15:34:31 <viveknarasimhan> hi
15:34:48 <viveknarasimhan> i am there
15:35:34 <Swami> viveknarasimhan: can you provide an update for the L2 agent
15:35:54 <viveknarasimhan> i posted the L2 Agent/ML2 plugin WIP code for review
15:36:05 <viveknarasimhan> i have been getting review comments from lot of folks
15:36:20 <viveknarasimhan> i will be starting to address them one-by-one from today
15:36:35 <viveknarasimhan> The port-binding changes are done and i am running various type of use-cases on it
15:37:01 <viveknarasimhan> like DVR hosted + Non DVR hosted VM type of cases to make sure old behaviour didn't brek
15:37:27 <viveknarasimhan> i have a question though
15:37:50 <viveknarasimhan> i we link the patches say L3 Extension patch is linked with my L2 patch put for review
15:38:19 <viveknarasimhan> if i do git pull --rebase, then will I be required to address conflicts i nthe L3 Extension patch also?
15:38:43 <viveknarasimhan> so the question is: when patches are linked, how is git pull --rebase handled , before we repost for review
15:39:35 <Swami> viveknarasimhan: no I am not an expert in this area.
15:39:51 <Swami> I can check offline and let you know.
15:39:55 <amotoki> viveknarasimhan: which patch?
15:40:27 <Swami> amotoki: Viveknarasimhan has a dependency of the L3 extension patch that we posted for review.
15:41:09 <amotoki> Swami: I just check the exact one. I am looking for it in the review list...
15:41:18 <Swami> So he is asking how to post patches that have dependencies for review and if the dependent source tree has any conflicts, how to resolve it.
15:41:24 <viveknarasimhan> this patch: https://review.openstack.org/87730
15:41:45 <viveknarasimhan> the above patch is the L2 side changes and this dependes on L3 side changes also posted by Swami earlier
15:42:20 <amotoki> I got it. I think if there is no direct dependency you can post without dependency (if there is a note in the commit message).
15:42:38 <Swami> amotoki: There are the two patches
15:42:41 <Swami> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/neutron-ovs-dvr,n,z
15:43:26 <amotoki> yes i know. perhaps you are talking about how to manage the dependency.
15:43:35 <Swami> amotoki: Thanks for your help.
15:43:49 <Swami> viveknarasimhan: We can take it offline and resolve this issue.
15:43:52 <amotoki> if you have a question, i can help anytime.
15:44:02 <viveknarasimhan> i will mail you amotoki
15:44:09 <Swami> amotoki: Thanks for your help again.
15:44:17 <viveknarasimhan> i will also CC mestery on the same question.  Thanks for your help amotoki.
15:44:44 <Swami> #topic FIP/SNAT question.
15:44:59 <Swami> There was another question that we had with the FIP/SNAT.
15:45:24 <Swami> Today in the distributed model, we will be having SNAT and FIP running on two different nodes.
15:46:28 <Swami> When an admin removes the "SNAT" binding from an agent, then should FIP still continue to work?? this is the question
15:48:39 <Swami> Any suggestions?
15:48:57 <Rajeev> Swami: FIP and SNAT are independent
15:49:05 <Rajeev> so should continue to work
15:49:07 <mestery> I can help with the patch dependency issue as well.
15:49:20 <Swami> rajeev: Yes thanks for your input.
15:49:27 <Rajeev> An external gateway has to be set for the router
15:49:28 <xuhanp> Swami, what do you mean by "remove the binding"?
15:49:31 <mrsmith> but don't we require the external-gateway-set?
15:49:35 * pcm__ On dependency:  https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Gerrit_Workflow#Add_dependency
15:49:36 <mrsmith> for FIP?
15:49:39 <Rajeev> Thereafter both SNAT and FIP can be there
15:50:14 <Swami> Even though FIP and SNAT are different mrsmith mentioned there is some dependency and so we wanted to get broader consensus on this before we proceed.
15:50:16 <Rajeev> From an agent perspective, it can handle SNAT in addition to FIP depending on what it's .ini says
15:51:06 <Murali> in this case in FIP namespace what is gatway IP?
15:51:09 <mrsmith> seems awkward to me to require ext-gw-set, but then allow it to be cleared
15:51:17 <Swami> xuhanp: We are proposing an admin level command to remove and add SNAT from an agent.
15:51:19 <mrsmith> for FIPs
15:51:43 <Swami> xuhanp: That is what I mentioned as binding to the agent.
15:51:53 <xuhanp> Swami, you mean choose another agent to take the SNAT role node?
15:52:22 <Swami> xuhanp: Yes, before you move, you first remove the binding from the current SNAT agent.
15:52:39 <xuhanp> Swami, thanks for the clarification
15:53:04 <Swami> mestery: Thanks for your help.
15:53:51 <Swami> So what i am hearing is in the distributed model, SNAT behavior should not affect the FIP.
15:54:04 <Swami> or vise versa.
15:54:44 <Swami> mrsmith: Do you have any suggestions on this or do you want to discuss this more next week.
15:55:32 <carl_baldwin> I'll admit I don't completely understand what the dependency between FIP and default SNAT might be.
15:55:32 <mrsmith> it is possible to do, and I guess a "good" feature to be able to move SNAT while FIPs are running
15:55:36 <Swami> Ok, let us talk about this topic more indepth in the next meeting.
15:55:43 <mrsmith> sure
15:56:01 <mrsmith> the only dependency is in the current code
15:56:05 <mrsmith> more to refactor
15:56:15 <carl_baldwin> So, an implementation level dependency.
15:56:20 <mrsmith> yes
15:56:27 <Swami> We only have a couple of more minutes.
15:56:36 <Swami> #topic General discussion
15:56:40 <carl_baldwin> I see.  I think we can work that out.  I've done some work with this as well.
15:56:45 <Swami> Does anyone have any other topic to discuss.
15:56:52 <mrsmith> carl: sounds good
15:57:13 <Swami> I knew that rajeev brought up some summit design discussion topic.
15:57:13 <Rajeev> For the summit, we want to poll audience on future for DVR
15:57:45 <Swami> Rajeev, we do have signed up for a "DVR update".
15:58:07 <Swami> In order to achieve partiy with Nova, we also need to complete the Distributed DHCP.
15:58:13 <Rajeev> Great
15:58:33 <Swami> This is one of the major topic that came up last week when I discussed DVR with Mark McClain.
15:58:46 <viveknarasimhan> I just started off
15:58:51 <viveknarasimhan> with the Distributed DHCP document
15:59:00 <Swami> So the immediate need is "refactor' the L3 Agent/L2 Agent code and also to support Distributed DHCP.
15:59:03 <viveknarasimhan> i will whet that with you Swami and then we can proceed from that point
15:59:26 <Swami> Ok we are almost at the end of the hour
15:59:42 <Swami> Thanks all for joining this meeting.
16:00:01 <Swami> Keep up the momentum.
16:00:08 <Swami> bye
16:00:13 <Swami> #endmeeting