17:30:14 #startmeeting Networking Advanced Services 17:30:15 Meeting started Wed Aug 6 17:30:14 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is SumitNaiksatam. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:30:16 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 17:30:18 The meeting name has been set to 'networking_advanced_services' 17:30:27 hi 17:30:53 so i wanted to clear out the priorities right at the outset 17:31:24 so that we dont end up spending time here discussing only to be blocked by a -2 towards the end of J3 17:31:38 this is not on the agenda 17:31:49 does any one have objections to discussing this? 17:32:06 or any other higher priority item to start the meeting? 17:32:49 mestery: there? 17:32:59 i would like to get the PTL’s opinion on this 17:33:10 and provide us with direction here 17:33:44 mestery: checking again 17:34:26 i would have liked to check with markmcclain as well 17:34:40 however he does not seem to be online either 17:35:18 SumitNaiksatam: just to be clear we're talking about the priorities of this group right? 17:35:51 marios: i am talking about priorities for this group as well, the priorities of this group in the context of what is happening in neutron 17:35:53 (and how they align with neutron more generally) 17:35:57 right thx 17:35:59 marios: yeah exactly 17:36:42 SumitNaiksatam: however on Monday Neutron meetings, adv-service is no longer even a line item for discussion. So I am worried that cores would not pay attention to us... 17:36:47 if anyone is following the thread regarding GBP on the dev mailer, it was suggested by folks from outside the neutron team that Neutron should be solely focussing nova network parity 17:37:10 why was adv. services removed from the weekly meeting agenda 17:37:32 s3wong marios: i dont think it was removed 17:37:43 i did provide an update on it 17:37:51 SumitNaiksatam: yeah right, and saying that during J-3 is exactly the proper time :D 17:38:28 i am trying to pull up the logs 17:38:49 SumitNaiksatam: so right now for j3 we have flavors and service insertion right? 17:39:00 #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking/2014/networking.2014-08-04-21.02.log.html 17:39:14 marios: we have flavors, service insertion and service chaining 17:39:36 these are in different stages 17:39:51 flavors spec is not approved, but enikanorov_ has made good progress on the implementation 17:40:10 SumitNaiksatam: is there a relative priority of these 3 projects? 17:40:13 service insertion spec is approved, and work is in progress, but not as far along as we would have liked 17:40:49 and service chaining work is coming along well, i believe 17:41:08 songole: i dont know the priority of flavors since its not approved yet 17:41:15 songole: but i believe it would be high 17:41:40 I guess chaining is marked low 17:41:53 the other two are at medium priority 17:42:08 ok 17:42:24 since thet are part of the same launchpad bp 17:42:25 mestery has a bad cold today, fyi. he might be a little less responsive. 17:43:54 dougwig: yes i know 17:44:16 dougwig: we chatted and asked me to ping him nevertheless in case he was feeling up to it 17:44:38 ok, good. 17:46:04 ok we can go through the regular updates, i guess 17:46:10 unless someone has other suggestions 17:46:52 i wanted us to all be on the same page with the priorities before we spend more time on this 17:46:52 #topic Flavors 17:46:52 enikanorov_: hi 17:47:55 no one is on-line today :-) 17:47:59 enikanorov_: any progress on the spec? :-) 17:48:17 s3wong: it's summer, maan :) 17:48:24 * SumitNaiksatam runs for cover to escape enikanorov_’s ire! 17:48:25 I think enikanorov updated his patch several times 17:48:44 I asked him about what need to be done for different services 17:48:49 SumitNaiksatam: are you trolling? 17:48:50 the spec is not updated since July 3rd 17:49:11 right. He asked me to stay put too ... 17:50:01 in the last meeting we were told by the PTL that the priority would be to get this approved end of last week 17:50:26 i am one of the reviewers on this, but without an update on the spec i dont see how we can move forward on approving it 17:50:31 enikanorov_: still there? 17:52:48 perhaps we have lost enikanorov_ as well 17:53:08 anything anyone else wants to discuss related to flavors? 17:53:37 are the respective services’ patch owners already working on following up on enikanorov_’s flavor’s implementation? 17:54:04 if things do progress, we would need lbaas, fwaas, and vpnaas to comply wiht the flavors framework (however that ends up being) 17:54:34 if you have signed up to do the work, perhaps good to still stay in the loop (we havent given up on this yet!) 17:55:57 ok moving on 17:56:04 #topic service chaining 17:56:10 songole hemanthravi: there? 17:56:20 hi 17:56:26 SumitNaiksatam: I will give an update 17:56:36 songole: please go ahead 17:56:44 CLI patch and API extension is done. 17:56:56 plugin implemention is almost there 17:57:07 I am working on DB 17:57:20 I will post once I have DB in place 17:57:57 songole: oh wow that is excellent progress 17:58:05 songole: have you posted WIP patches? 17:58:16 SumitNaiksatam: not yet. 17:58:37 I will post after some testing 17:58:39 songole: it will be good to do that at the earliest so that the rest of the team here can focus on thise 17:58:43 *those 17:59:24 focus on reviewing that is 17:59:26 ok. will post once I got DB working 17:59:47 songole: actually if you tag it as WIP, it does not matter if its not fully functional 17:59:57 songole: i think you should post it in the state that it is in 18:00:14 ok 18:00:36 songole: any questions for songole? 18:00:53 songole has question for songole? 18:01:07 heh 18:01:28 SumitNaiksatam is multi tasking :-) 18:01:42 fat fingered :-) 18:01:51 any questions for songole? 18:01:59 songole: any blockers for you? 18:02:14 None at this time. 18:02:16 (actually i was going to ask that first, hence already songole typed in :-) ) 18:02:27 songole: alright great 18:02:35 #topic Service insertion 18:02:47 s3wong: there? 18:02:52 SumitNaiksatam: yes 18:03:03 i believe kanzhe has still not returned from his vacation 18:03:10 Sometimes today (hopefully) I will post a WIP patch for service insertion API and DB 18:03:18 i put a wip out today 18:03:25 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/108049/ 18:03:47 I have spent the morning changing kanzhe 's stuff to be more closely aligned with the final spec 18:03:52 (vpn side of things, will remove all the extraneous parts (like the serviceinterfacedb once the base is sent) 18:04:08 posting the WIP would also allow marios and SridarK to start their patches with an dependency 18:04:11 marios: that is awesome 18:04:17 marios: its good to be ahead of the curve 18:04:19 so I don't have to be a blocker 18:04:28 s3wong: thanks - we will need to sync up too 18:04:35 s3wong: thanks for working on this in parallel, thats awesome 18:04:59 SumitNaiksatam: sure. started thinking a bit about tests today to 18:05:08 SumitNaiksatam: btw... will we be doing 'one more update' to the spec? 18:05:12 marios: thats great 18:05:32 SumitNaiksatam: (eg removal of the 'router' attribute from the vpn db class) 18:05:47 marios: oh i thought we will leave it in there, right? 18:05:48 SumitNaiksatam: or you think is unnecessary? 18:06:10 SumitNaiksatam: ok, wasn't sure about that one 18:06:27 isn't it neccessary? 18:06:32 marios: I think we have agreed to not remove it (in IRC meeting) - but the spec hasn't reflected it 18:06:44 s3wong: yes that is exactly what i mean 18:07:28 SumitNaiksatam is so mad that he left 18:07:32 SumitNaiksatam: 18:06 < s3wong> marios: I think we have agreed to not remove it (in IRC meeting) - but the spec hasn't reflected it 18:07:35 18:06 < marios> s3wong: yes that is exactly what i mean 18:08:06 i c 18:09:15 Well, we lost SumitNaiksatam again 18:09:28 but luckily, I am done with my update :-) 18:09:35 * marios too 18:09:46 s3wong: will you be publishing to gerrit btw? 18:10:01 s3wong: last week you mentioned https://github.com/noironetworks/neutron-group-policy/tree/service-insertion 18:10:16 marios: yes 18:10:27 kanzhe made some initial changes there 18:10:54 and it is based on his changes that I am currently making changes to make the code more up-to-date with the latest spec 18:11:14 s3wong: ok thanks, i'll have a look when i revisit for my update next week 18:11:25 s3wong: so the current model is to introduce a new plugin ? 18:11:25 (or rather will look out for that review) 18:11:39 marios: my update will actually go to gerrit (WIP) patch (hopefully today) 18:11:49 ok thx 18:12:06 SridarK: well, the service interface class already has a pluginbase, so that is not new 18:12:53 the question has more to do with --- given that FW/VPN/LB instance creation happens on REST API on respective services, how would the serviceInterfacePlugin be able to know 18:13:14 s3wong: yes that was the discussion on the last mtg 18:13:28 SridarK: yes 18:13:39 hi, folks, for some reason i was not seeing any of your messages in my client 18:13:57 logged in from the web client now 18:13:58 SumitNaiksatam_: it seemed like u got bounced out 18:14:07 SridarK: marios: on the meantime, the notification system has more to do with plugin implementation, so just for API and DB, I can post a patch first to not block you guys 18:14:11 SridarK: ah ok 18:14:28 s3wong: that sounds like a good idea to make progress 18:15:01 s3wong: ok - need to dig thru some specifics so i get on the same page - missed some discussion on my PTO - will ping u offline 18:15:08 s3wong: SumitNaiksatam_ do we need to update the spec to describe these changes too? 18:15:27 SumitNaiksatam_: done with our updates 18:17:32 SumitNaiksatam: i promise i won't say 'update the spec' again if start talking to us again 18:17:41 marios: lol 18:17:53 i think there are network issues at my end 18:17:57 :) 18:18:02 my sincere apologies to all! 18:18:21 so have concluded on the service insertion discussion 18:18:24 i only got parts of it 18:18:53 :/ 18:19:08 when it rains... 18:20:48 Oh well, I guess cgoncalves and anil_rao will have to hold on for their updates on traffic steering and TapaaS 18:21:19 surely someone else can drive the meeting if we need to? 18:21:33 are cgoncalves and/or vinay about? 18:22:03 Vinay is not here today, but I can give a brief update on Tap-aaS. :) 18:22:03 in which case moot point :) 18:22:24 #topic TAPaaS 18:22:40 does meetbot only respond to certain people? 18:22:51 We (Vinay and I) are currently revising the spec 18:23:05 marios: yes, the chair (in this case, whoever did the #startmeeting) 18:23:21 the idea is to remove some fo the confusion in the last version and to accomodate some of the comments into the body of the document 18:23:24 s3wong: i c thx 18:24:50 all: it is possible for a chair to add/remove other chairs via #chair/#unchair (if they so wish and the meetbot has that command compiled in) 18:24:58 SumitNaiksatam: anil_rao is doing update on TapaaS 18:25:23 In addition, we also plan to put up some WIP code for early review shortly. 18:25:43 but, until Sumit comes back, we have to go to one of the ops to get the meeting unstuck 18:26:16 regXboi: we could still just continue through the agenda anyway 18:26:20 regXboi: this is all in the minutes 18:26:31 regXboi: meetbot from OpenStack channels will allow anyone to #endmeeting after one hour 18:26:39 yes, sorta... 18:26:44 OH, except the endmeeting 18:26:47 and I'm not saying we shouldn't go on 18:26:50 didn't think about that 18:26:53 folks i am back, i think 18:27:03 just the minutes will look a little .... odd 18:27:11 let me end the meeting, so in case i get bounced out, the meeting does not linger 18:27:15 regXboi: SumitNaiksatam you may want to endmeeting asap to at least capture the chat 18:27:23 marios: exactly 18:27:25 err sorry regXboi that was meant for sumit 18:27:26 #endmeeting