15:00:12 #startmeeting massively_distributed_clouds 15:00:12 Meeting started Wed Nov 23 15:00:12 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is ad_rien_. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:00:12 #chair ad_rien_ 15:00:13 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 15:00:15 The meeting name has been set to 'massively_distributed_clouds' 15:00:16 Current chairs: ad_rien_ 15:00:24 Hi guys. 15:00:34 May I ask you who is online ?( 15:00:38 o/ 15:00:45 o/ 15:00:50 o/ 15:00:51 Hi kgiusti 15:00:52 o/ 15:01:14 hello! 15:01:20 o/ 15:01:32 so let's wait one or two minutes, meanwhile you can give a look to the agenda (line 21 of the pad) 15:01:38 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/massively_distributed_ircmeetings_2016 15:02:10 may I ask you to complete it (starting by who is attending the meeting today) 15:03:12 o/ 15:03:14 ok so let's start 15:03:51 #topic barcelona sumup 15:04:18 as a reminder, the minutes we took during our face to face meeting in Barcelona are available at 15:04:26 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/massively_distribute-barcelona_working_sessions 15:04:56 we identify a few actions that can be addressed during this cycle 15:05:12 - Identify deployment scenarios for massively distributed/fog/edge clouds (multi regions / one region with cells / one region with compute nodes deployed at the edge, ....) 15:05:12 - Identify technical challenges/limitations for each scenario (quotas, heat, network issues, live migration, ...) 15:05:12 - Identify evaluation scenarios (from the performance and functionnal viewpoint). 15:05:46 do you think we should add other action candidates in this list? 15:06:36 ok it seems to be ok. 15:07:31 foliveira: ? 15:08:19 ok so the next question is then to put some priorities on each action 15:08:39 we can follow the proposed order or change a bit 15:08:58 To go along with the scenarios, is there a general agreement on the definitions of terms? 15:09:10 not yet 15:09:14 e.g. what is the definition of region, site, edge, etc. 15:09:24 maybe I should mention that we are discussing with the NFV working group 15:09:44 about what can be a minimalist NVFi deployment 15:10:11 some folks from AT&T are taking part to the discussion 15:10:28 ETSI NFV IFA WG? 15:10:31 The first approach would be to have a central control plane and the data plane on the edge. Concretely 15:10:59 foliveira: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ops-telco-nfv-meeting-agenda 15:11:01 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ops-telco-nfv-meeting-agenda 15:11:02 Hi everyone 15:11:58 so the idea is to put keystone, glance, nova (main services), … in one ''central'' DC and put the nova-compute at the edge (i.e. on distinct location) 15:12:25 this is a first scenario where we can conduct functional and performance evaluations to see pros/cons 15:12:42 we should try to identify two or three more deployment scenarios 15:13:11 and for each identify pros/cons in terms of features and performances avantages/drawbacks 15:13:44 so maybe ansmith you are right we should define that in one document/pad 15:13:49 just to avoid confusion. 15:14:32 #action make a proposal for defining the different terms (region, site, edge, fog…) 15:14:47 attempt to unify definitision across openstack, etsi/nfv and edge/fog would be helpful 15:15:06 yes exactly 15:15:14 so let's try to identify what can be the key word: 15:15:24 and what functionality is expected of the "edge" 15:15:46 it depends the scenario but you are right we can define one. 15:16:43 so what are the key terms we may use ? 15:16:55 Region, edge, site, compute_node/hypervisor 15:17:02 cell 15:17:39 (ansmith BTW not sure how the cell V2 feature is going to progress as lasky left Mirantis) 15:17:55 maybe it is a term we should abstract away 15:18:18 we got an information from DinaBelova from the performance WG that told us it will be now manage by two persons at redhat (if I'm right) 15:19:22 There is another person at redhat that is also interested by this notion of fog/edge computing, maybe we should try to invite him 15:19:34 * ad_rien_ is looking for his name 15:20:27 There is someone from redhat that made a presentation on mobile edge computing. His name is Sanjay Aiyagari. 15:21:13 #link https://www.openstack.org/summit/barcelona-2016/summit-schedule/events/17407/red-hat-mobile-edge-computing-in-support-of-iot 15:21:44 ansmith: kgiusti do you know him ? 15:22:26 yes and we caught up with him in Barcelona 15:22:50 we have a follow up action to engage on nfv/iot topics with him 15:22:54 ok maybe it can make sense to have him to make progress on these definitions 15:23:23 getting back to the terms we should add in the list (see pad line 46) 15:23:26 anything else? 15:24:10 foliveira: do you have a specific use-case in mind at Verizon ? 15:26:05 ok 15:27:01 ok 15:27:23 ansmith: kgiusti do you have a deployment scenario in mind to test QPID 15:27:35 I mean in terms of how deploying the different openstack services 15:27:59 (ie. considering only the core ones: keystone, glance, nova, neutron, horizon and cinder) 15:29:28 At this point we're working with some of the downstream RDO folks in redhat to determine just that. 15:29:45 as I said I think we should try to identify at least two other scenarios 15:30:33 RDO ? 15:30:49 We need to identify those deployments that represent a challenge for a single/cluster broker 15:30:59 ok 15:30:59 http://rdoproject.org - a packaging of OpenStack for RPM. 15:31:17 #link http://rdoproject.org/ 15:31:17 RDO is the downstream community openstack release sponsored by redhat 15:31:30 think fedora for openstack :) 15:31:36 thinking about the first scenario (e.g. central DC) there may be scenarios 1A and 1B 15:31:45 yes please go ahead ? 15:32:07 1A which is hub and spoke, e.g. edge always goes back to central 15:32:17 1B where edges have peer relations 15:32:47 to have peer relations, does it mean you have services deployed at the edge ? 15:32:49 1B takes into account network communication topology as opposed to control path topology 15:32:57 yes 15:33:06 because AFAIK, compute nodes do not interact each other? 15:33:22 no but there may be networking service chains that link them up 15:33:40 can you elaborate a bit please 15:33:52 in 1A all control plane is within the DC 15:34:15 and compute_nodes at the edge (in different locations) 15:34:16 If I have network functions deployed as VMs at the edge, I would want to create network paths 15:34:17 in 1B? 15:34:35 ok 15:34:43 that would not want to be constrained by "hub n spoke' 15:34:45 I would expect that compute nodes would communicate within a site but perhaps not between sites. Is this 1B as well? 15:35:03 I think it is a question for NFVi folks to see if this is implied by there scenario 15:35:10 ok 15:35:22 but in that case it looks to be communications between VMs (i.e. data plane) 15:35:30 is it correct ? 15:35:39 Consider the case where a "site" consists of several buildings on a campus, with a few nodes per building. 15:36:13 (or more widespread, but the campus model is fairly easy to map to a DC-focused model) 15:36:14 VxLAN tunnels between compute nodes? 15:36:43 persia: ok ? 15:37:03 I read scenario above to imply edge is at a distinct location 15:37:52 potentially large latencies from DC to edge, expected outages, etc. 15:38:01 yes 15:38:26 this is the scenario 1A (I'm trying to make an ascii figure in the pad) 15:38:31 y'all should just rename "massively distributed cloud working group" to "Telco/NFV workgroup" 15:38:53 thanks jaypipes :-) 15:39:40 but actually this is a bit different as massively distributed cloud is a bit larger than NFV (even if it is true that telcos operators are quite interested by the distribution of OpenStack) 15:39:59 and yes, dansmith and melwitt from nova are continuing alaski's work in cellsv2 15:41:29 ansmith: scenario 1A is in the pad 15:41:47 what was your idea of 1B? 15:42:24 what we would like to do by evaluating the performance of scenario 1A is to identify latency/bw limitations 15:42:55 another scenario can be to evaluate the region deployment scenario (as described in the OpenStack documentation) 15:43:17 scenario 1A seems similar to Nectar deployment where each location is a cell mapped to an availibilty zone ? 15:43:58 in 1A you have only compute nodes in remote locations 15:44:30 in the nectar approach, they follow the cell v1 approach so you have some controller services in each location 15:45:36 let's move forward 15:45:48 #action try to prepare figures to illustrate the different scenarios 15:46:14 so for the moment we have identified three scenarios 15:47:39 actually the scenario 1B proposed by ansmith is unclear to me 15:48:25 if VNF1 instance is at B and VNF2 instances is at C 15:48:38 yes? 15:48:42 scenario 1A implies they rely on A for network services 15:48:56 what do you mean? 15:49:02 scneario 1B would imply there are peer services at B and C 15:49:16 in 1A instances can communicate between location using tunnels ? no ? 15:49:25 to support optimal service chaining 15:49:51 I get the feeling that it depends how you are managing the network 15:49:54 (flat, ….) 15:50:18 if you are in the same domain, once the VMs (NFV instance) get their IPs, they can discuss directly 15:50:43 (this is a naive example just to check we are on the same wavelenght?) 15:51:35 from my understanding this is a drawback/limitations of the scenario 1A. 15:51:39 same wavelength, need to think through some more in the scenario spec 15:51:45 ok 15:52:03 So just to be sure, with the vanilla code, is there other possible scenarios ? 15:52:54 once again, the objective is to identify pros/cons of each approach, missing features, performance limitations... 15:53:33 based on that we can have stronger arguments to discuss with the openstack community and see what revisions/extensions can be proposed 15:53:42 is it ok for everyone? 15:54:05 of we have 5 min 15:54:14 more 15:54:40 I propose to switch to the open discussion as the other points are still related to the deployment scenarios 15:54:53 #topic Open Discussion 15:55:16 so on our side as mentioned we would be happy to get in touch Sanjay Aiyagar 15:55:35 would it be possible ansmith / kgiusti to introduce our WG? 15:56:02 we will reach out to Sanjay and invite him to participate as well 15:56:07 thanks 15:56:23 we should have a discussion with Deutch telekom next fridau on our side too 15:56:33 will keep inform about the results 15:56:42 that's all for the Inria side 15:56:43 Others ? 15:57:29 Ok it seems that we are done 15:57:57 I will clean the pad, please give it a look to see the actions we defined 15:58:13 and feel free to complete/amend it 15:58:18 thanks 15:58:32 For attending the meeting 15:58:44 thanks :) 15:58:49 #endmeeting