15:02:24 <Swami> #startmeeting distributed_virtual_router
15:02:25 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Aug 13 15:02:24 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is Swami. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:02:26 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:02:29 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'distributed_virtual_router'
15:03:06 <Bhooshan> swami: Hi
15:03:10 <aleksandr_null> Hi guys!
15:03:12 <Swami> Vinod_: hi
15:03:22 <Vinod_> HI Swami
15:03:26 <Swami> aleksandr_null:hi
15:03:38 <Swami> #topic agenda
15:03:44 <Swami> DVR Update
15:03:58 <Swami> DVR Bugs update
15:04:13 <Swami> Services with DVR update
15:04:21 <Swami> Open Discussion
15:04:30 <Swami> #topic DVR Update
15:05:04 <Swami> DVR code is upstream and currently in testing.
15:05:10 <Vinod_> Bug 1353266 fix committed and +1 given by 3 reviewers
15:05:11 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1353266 in neutron "Router update creates router namespaces on nodes even though no VM is hosted for attached subnets" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1353266
15:05:22 <Swami> Please feel free to test the DVR code in upstream
15:05:43 <Swami> We need more testers so that we can make it more stable.
15:06:04 <Swami> Vinod_: Just hold on for the Bugs topic and we will discuss it there.
15:06:15 <Vinod_> fine
15:06:53 <Swami> For those of you who have not tested DVR and wanted to know how to test it, just follow the link below.
15:06:56 <Swami> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/DVR/HowTo
15:07:40 <Swami> The DVR team is currently engaged in the fixing bugs and addressing some backlog items for the DVR support.
15:08:11 <Swami> That's all I had with respect to the update.
15:08:31 <Swami> There is some work still going on with respect to the experimental job for DVR that we started.
15:09:26 <Swami> We still have some tests failures in the experimental job. I think Armando, Carl and Brian Haley are looking into those issues
15:10:00 <Swami> Now let us move on to the DVR bugs and backlog items.
15:10:07 <armax> Swami: I think all the tempest-induced failures have been captured on the backlog list of bugs
15:10:08 <Swami> #topic DVR bugs and backlog items
15:10:25 <Swami> armax: thanks for the information.
15:10:43 <Swami> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bugs?field.tag=l3-dvr-backlog
15:11:20 <armax> I think this link is less daunting
15:11:24 <armax> #link:
15:11:24 <armax> https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bugs?field.searchtext=&field.status%3Alist=NEW&field.status%3Alist=CONFIRMED&field.status%3Alist=TRIAGED&field.status%3Alist=INPROGRESS&field.status%3Alist=INCOMPLETE_WITH_RESPONSE&field.status%3Alist=INCOMPLETE_WITHOUT_RESPONSE&assignee_option=any&field.assignee=&field.bug_reporter=&field.bug_commenter=&field.subscriber=&field.structural_subscriber=&field.tag=l3-dvr-backlog&field.tags_combinator=ANY&field.
15:11:25 <armax> s_cve.used=&field.omit_dupes.used=&field.omit_dupes=on&field.affects_me.used=&field.has_patch.used=&field.has_branches.used=&field.has_branches=on&field.has_no_branches.used=&field.has_no_branches=on&field.has_blueprints.used=&field.has_blueprints=on&field.has_no_blueprints.used=&field.has_no_blueprints=on&search=Search&orderby=-id&start=0
15:11:40 <armax> :)
15:11:48 <Swami> The link above gives the list of all bugs and backlog items for DVR
15:12:16 <armax> mine is only showing those in ‘progress’ or to be triaged
15:12:19 <mrsmith> +1 armax - I wondered how to get rid of the "fix commited" bugs
15:12:38 <armax> mrsmith: you go to the advanced search link on LP
15:12:44 <Swami> mrsmith: There is no option to filter it based on the status.
15:13:11 <armax> yes there is
15:13:30 <Swami> armax: ok I see your comment on that. Thanks
15:13:54 <armax> anyhoo, back to the...backlog
15:14:08 <armax> sorry
15:14:23 <Swami> at present there are 7 high bugs and I think most of the bugs have already been fixed and some are in progress.
15:15:58 <Swami> Folks please review the patches for the bugs that have been posted.
15:16:02 <armax> I think only two are unassigned
15:16:17 <Swami> Vinod_: Do you want to say something about the bug that you are working on.
15:16:30 <armax> but one is bug #1350413 which I see it as wishlist
15:16:31 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1350413 in neutron "Migration of distributed router to legacy (central) not implemented" [Wishlist,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1350413
15:16:40 <Swami> armax: Yes right now the new bugs that was added are unassigned.
15:16:41 <Vinod_> Bug 1353266 fix committed and +1 given by 3 reviewers
15:16:42 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1353266 in neutron "Router update creates router namespaces on nodes even though no VM is hosted for attached subnets" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1353266
15:16:42 <armax> but virtbot sees that too :)
15:16:51 <aleksandr_null> Guys, I noticed strange thing. Do we keep in mind how we manage floating IP for live migration.
15:17:06 <Vinod_> Jenkin passes, pending for approval
15:17:34 <Swami> armax: This bug 1350413 I don't think we were planning to address this bug for the Juno, it would be post Juno. So we will take it up after Juno.
15:17:35 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1350413 in neutron "Migration of distributed router to legacy (central) not implemented" [Wishlist,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1350413
15:18:20 <Swami> Vinod_: We will review the patch and provide comments into the gerrit if there is any concerns.
15:18:33 <Vinod_> sure, thanks
15:19:11 <Swami> mrsmith: or armax: do you have anything more on the bugs
15:19:19 <armax> nope
15:19:28 <Swami> armax: thanks
15:19:51 <mrsmith> Swami: I spent some time working on the migration from legacy to dvr yesterday
15:20:00 <mrsmith> II'd like to work with you some more today
15:20:15 <mrsmith> we are still hoping to have that for Juno right?
15:20:17 <Swami> I will be adding another item to the bugs list today with respect to DVR not able to support assignment of FIP to the LBaaS VIP port.
15:20:32 <Swami> mrsmith: Yes we are targeting it for Juno
15:20:36 <mrsmith> https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1348309
15:20:38 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1348309 in neutron "Migration of legacy router to distributed router not working" [Medium,In progress]
15:21:23 <mrsmith> essentially, the snat host binding is not being done currently in the patch
15:21:37 <mrsmith> so the agent doesn't apply the proper rules
15:21:47 <mrsmith> Swami: can we chat later on this?
15:21:55 <Swami> mrsmith: is this for the migration patch or in general.
15:22:09 <mrsmith> certainly in general - but also with the patch
15:22:09 <Swami> mrsmith: yes we can take it offline
15:22:12 <mrsmith> this is the migration path
15:22:46 <Swami> #topic Horizon support for DVR
15:23:01 <Bhooshan> I have finished Enhancement of Horizon to support DVR, Build succeeded for the patch set 3
15:23:03 <viveknarasimhan> aleksandr query went unanswered
15:23:06 <Swami> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/112583/
15:23:23 <viveknarasimhan> aleksandr: we are trying out basic live migration, and will keep you posted
15:23:54 <Swami> aleksandr_null: sorry I missed your comment.
15:24:22 <Swami> we can discuss your query during the open discussion, is that ok for you.
15:24:51 <aleksandr_null> I'm sorry, of course it will work for me!
15:24:54 <Swami> viveknarasimhan: Thanks for monitoring the comments.
15:25:07 <Bhooshan> I have finished Enhancement of Horizon to support DVR, Build succeeded for the patch set 3
15:25:20 <Swami> Bhooshan: I did review your patch for the horizon work.
15:25:27 <Bhooshan> So far I have received many valuable comments from the community and I have incorporated them.
15:25:47 <Bhooshan> There was comments related to setting  default value of distributed checkbox on horizon, right now there is no restful interface available For getting that value from netron.conf
15:25:49 <Swami> Last week we proposed that you will be posting the screen shots for sharing.
15:26:37 <Swami> Bhooshan: Is there any REST api for exposing the configuration options in "neutron.conf" for Horizon
15:26:58 <Swami> I am just checking, to understand
15:27:18 <Bhooshan> i checked horizon  blueprint for adding the screenshot but could not find it
15:27:44 <Bhooshan> i am not sure where to upload screenshots
15:27:50 <Swami> I am not aware about any config file related options exposed in horizon.
15:28:14 <Swami> Bhooshan: that's fine, any way your patches are up, so anyone who wanted to test can include your patch and test it.
15:28:37 <Bhooshan> yes
15:29:20 <Bhooshan> Current implementation distributed checkbox is set to True, but in neutron.conf default value of distributed flag is set False.
15:29:31 <Swami> Bhooshan: Even though we don't have the default option exposed through horizon,we do have an option to override the default configuration, which is more important.
15:29:44 <viveknarasimhan> Bhooshan: please ensure UT coverage for your changes
15:29:56 <Swami> I don't think the CLI has an option to set the default value as well.
15:30:05 <viveknarasimhan> that will ensure things are not broken by other horizon rebases and commits
15:30:32 <viveknarasimhan> CLI takes the default based on neutron.conf settings
15:30:43 <viveknarasimhan> routers_distributed=True with normal router-create will
15:30:45 <Swami> Bhooshan: In that case will it not be advisable to "remove" the "distributed checkbox".
15:30:46 <viveknarasimhan> result in DVR
15:30:58 <Bhooshan> vivek: i will do that
15:31:40 <Swami> viveknarasimhan: Yes CLI does not provide an option for the tenant to configure the "neutron.conf".
15:31:52 <Bhooshan> Akihiro Motoki  suggested to put checkbox
15:32:32 <Swami> Let us have a chat with Akihiro Motoki on that, why he requires a checkbox on the GUI, if something is already configured in the "neutron.conf" file.
15:32:42 <Bhooshan> the checkbox is required for admin router creation form
15:33:04 <amotoki> hey
15:33:20 <Swami> amotoki: hi
15:33:32 <amotoki> it seems you are discussing how to specify the "distributed" attr in horizon.
15:34:03 <Swami> I was just hearing about a "checkbox" being introduced in the Horizon for the "default" configuration of distributed routers.
15:34:08 <Swami> Is that required
15:34:45 <amotoki> In my understanding, there is three option: specify Distributed, specify Centeralized, and not specify any (leave the decision to the server).
15:35:07 <Swami> amotoki: The default configuration is still going to reside in the "neutron.conf" file. The tenant or the admin today will not override that file from the GUI or from CLI.
15:35:08 <Bhooshan> even if you specify default value inside neutron.conf from horizon side you have flexibility of creating DVR or CR
15:35:37 <Rajeev> Bhooshan: only admin has that ability
15:35:53 <Swami> Bhooshan: amotoki: Ok yes I agree with you.
15:36:01 <Rajeev> i.e. Cloud Admin
15:36:05 <Bhooshan> irrespective of default value
15:36:24 <Bhooshan> yes only cloud admin has that option
15:36:40 <Swami> Bhooshan: You mentioned that there is no Rest API.
15:36:55 <Swami> Bhooshan: what was that you were referrring to.
15:37:21 <Bhooshan> Rest API for reading neutron.conf
15:37:29 <viveknarasimhan> bhooshan was referring if there is API to read default value from neutron.conf
15:37:42 <viveknarasimhan> oslo.cfg stores values from neutron.conf
15:37:53 <viveknarasimhan> if horizon has access to oslo.cfg, we can take
15:37:54 <viveknarasimhan> it from there
15:38:20 <Bhooshan> display on horizon side
15:38:46 <Swami> Bhooshan: amotoki: Yes what I am suggesting is we don't need to show the user, what default value is configured in the "neutron.conf" file.
15:38:52 <Bhooshan> vivek: i have not investigated that option
15:39:04 <Swami> All we wanted to provide is an option to set that value from the UI.
15:39:33 <viveknarasimhan> you can investigate
15:39:36 <Bhooshan> swami: if that is the case I am pretty much done with Horizon changes for DVR
15:39:45 <viveknarasimhan> and post us update
15:39:51 <Swami> Today in CLI or python-neutronclient, we don't show what is configured in the "neutron.conf" file for the distributed routers.
15:40:22 <Swami> bhooshan: I can discuss with you offline on this.
15:40:39 <viveknarasimhan> the issue with horizon is , it makes it easy to create other type of router by mistake
15:40:43 <Bhooshan> swami: sure
15:40:44 <amotoki> Swami: in CLI, if we don't specify any distributed option, no "distriburted" attr is sent to the server and the server decides what mode is used.
15:40:51 <viveknarasimhan> if the combo /checkbox is setup to non-default values
15:41:00 <amotoki> what I think we need is to allow this in horizon.
15:41:41 <Swami> amotoki: No we there is some misunderstanding. The CLI provides an option as part of the "router resource" REST Api to set the distributed =False or distributed=True.
15:41:53 <amotoki> another choice is to always specify True/False for distributed. Is it better?
15:42:04 <Swami> Bhooshan: mentioned in his message that there is no REST API to configure those options.
15:42:52 <Bhooshan> i mentioned there no option to read neuton.conf for getting the default value set
15:42:59 <Swami> amotoki: yes I like your choice of always specifying True/False for distributed.
15:43:27 <amotoki> Swami: but CLI allows us not to specify "distrbuted" in REST API in POST request.
15:43:45 <Swami> Bhooshan: amotoki: Yes that is want I am saying from the UI perspective you don't need to read what is configured in the "neutron.conf' file, but you can still set "distributed=true" or "distributed=false".
15:44:10 <amotoki> Swami: agree with that point.
15:44:28 <Bhooshan> that is what we doing with distributed checkbox on horizon side
15:44:36 <viveknarasimhan> swami: for admin creating a router
15:44:39 <Swami> amotoki: No the current python neutronclient allows an admin to set "--distributed=True or --distributed=False".
15:44:47 <viveknarasimhan> it is an additional step to carefully select checkbox now appropriately
15:44:52 <viveknarasimhan> earlier that pain was not there
15:45:21 <viveknarasimhan> if we coudl feed the default to the checkbox of horizon, this prone error could be controlle
15:45:37 <Bhooshan> vivek : in CLI you pass this argument while creating the DVR
15:45:39 <Swami> viveknarasimhan: It is not a pain but a choosen path for DVR by the admins.
15:45:44 <viveknarasimhan> yes, we pass in CLI
15:46:01 <viveknarasimhan> we will take this offline, i used the workflow...
15:46:02 <amotoki> Swami: i understand only admin can specify --distributed option.
15:46:08 <Bhooshan> we have feature available on horizon now
15:46:19 <Swami> amotoki: Yes only admins can pass this value.
15:46:34 <Bhooshan> sorry we have same feature available on horizon now
15:46:55 <Bhooshan> with distributed checkbox
15:47:05 <amotoki> precisely speaking, nonadmin can specify this option in CLI but as a result the neutron server rejects the option.
15:47:42 <Swami> amotoki; Yes you are right.
15:48:19 <amotoki> i don't check the latest version of Horizon review, so perhaps i am a bit out of the page.
15:49:14 <Swami> #topic Services
15:49:29 <Bhooshan> I am very much thankful to Amotoki and DVR team for giving this opportunity to work on Horizon and DVR team.
15:49:32 <amotoki> I only hear the requirement from DVR team thru Bhooshan and I am not confident what I understand the requirements correctly. I will check it.
15:50:09 <Swami> Bhooshan: amotoki: Thanks a lot for a quick patch for the DVR support
15:50:37 <amotoki> I also have how horizon DVR support should be. I will check it tomorrow.
15:50:44 <amotoki> please move on the next topic.
15:51:01 <Swami> amotoki: thanks
15:51:15 <Swami> We are working with the FWaaS team for support on DVR
15:51:26 <Swami> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113359/
15:51:59 <Swami> The FWaaS team had posted a WIP patch on their work. Please review it for DVR.
15:52:41 <Swami> Also on the LBaaS side as I mentioned in the Bugs section, I will be filing a bug to track the LBaaS issue with the DVR.
15:53:16 <Rajeev> just a clarification, FWaaS is first attempting single node SNAT capability
15:53:28 <Rajeev> so the code is written to that effect
15:53:47 <Swami> Today we found an issue with the LBaaS VIP port not able to get the FIP namespace when the LBaaS agent is running in a service node without nova.
15:54:52 <Swami> rajeev: They are targeting for North-South, but as I mentioned this is a WIP code, so the current code is just targetting to add FWaaS rules to the snat namespace and legacy router namespace.
15:55:00 <Swami> But it will refine.
15:55:32 <Swami> For LBaaS i will file a bug and will provide a patch that will fix it.
15:55:46 <Rajeev> Swami: thanks for FWaaS
15:55:47 <Swami> Now coming to the VPNaaS
15:56:45 <Swami> We still don't have an implementaion or a solution ready for VPNaaS in a DVR scenario. So while we work on this, we also might have to prevent anyone from creating a VPNService with a DVR router.
15:57:10 <Swami> So I will work with the team to add a patch to prevent it.
15:57:24 <Swami> #topic open discussion
15:57:43 <Rajeev> on VPNaaS, does the local router used for VPN route among local subnets or does it just forwards to the far subnets ?
15:57:49 <Swami> aleksandr_null: You had some topic on FIP, can you tell me.
15:58:27 <Swami> aleksandr_null: are you still there
15:58:34 <aleksandr_null> yep
15:58:44 <aleksandr_null> I'm writing a question ;)
15:58:52 <Swami> sure go ahead
15:59:31 <aleksandr_null> Yeah, Swami, so I didn't found in documents anything related migration of FIP when DVR is used. Because IP become a part of compute node where VM is located then we have to migrate it to another FIP on another compute node.
16:00:17 <aleksandr_null> Do we somehow reschedule a floating ip during live migration of instance ?
16:00:28 <Swami> aleksandr_null: We are currently working on dvr migration and will give an update on that .
16:00:43 <mrsmith> it may need changes in the scheduler
16:00:50 <mrsmith> in some ways it is like a new VM
16:00:55 <Swami> We have not thought of the live migration of instance. So in this case you are talking about live migration of the VM and not the DVR.
16:01:04 <mrsmith> but you are right, the FIP needs to be re-scheduled to the new CN
16:01:07 <Sukhdev> Swami: time check
16:01:09 <aleksandr_null> mrsmith: I agree. Looks like it should be initiated from nova.
16:01:34 <Swami> aleksandr_null: can you send me an email and we can track it in email.
16:01:38 <Swami> It is almost time now.
16:01:47 <Swami> bye guys and thank you for joining.
16:01:49 <aleksandr_null> Of course, I will do!
16:01:52 <aleksandr_null> Thanks guys!
16:01:54 <Swami> #endmeeting