18:01:30 <SumitNaiksatam> #startmeeting networking_policy
18:01:30 <openstack> Meeting started Thu May 26 18:01:30 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is SumitNaiksatam. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:01:32 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
18:01:34 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'networking_policy'
18:01:36 <hemanthravi> jagadish should be joinging in a mi
18:01:38 <hemanthravi> n
18:02:12 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: okay
18:02:50 <SumitNaiksatam> #info agenda https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/GroupBasedPolicy#May_26th.2C_2016
18:03:02 <SumitNaiksatam> i had the date wrong on the wiki page, just corrected it
18:03:11 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Bugs
18:03:31 <SumitNaiksatam> i did not notice anything critical/high being reported
18:03:58 <ivar-lazzaro> everything works!
18:04:11 <SumitNaiksatam> there was a bug reported by songole about the same IP being allocated to a member when the member is associated with multiple groups
18:04:18 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: lol!
18:04:22 <SumitNaiksatam> jagadish: hi
18:04:42 <SumitNaiksatam> we kind of analyzed what is going on, but will let songole enter the bug first
18:04:53 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: can a single member be associated to multiple groups?
18:04:57 * igordcard will be back in 3 minutes
18:05:00 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: yes
18:05:01 <ivar-lazzaro> you mean PT?
18:05:13 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: not PT, member
18:05:23 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: one PT per groups
18:05:27 <SumitNaiksatam> *group
18:05:39 <SumitNaiksatam> but the member has multiple PTs
18:05:49 <SumitNaiksatam> and each PT is a different group
18:06:12 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: oh ok, that's the UI member
18:06:19 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: right
18:06:39 <SumitNaiksatam> the problem in this case is that the PTs belong to PTGs which belong to different L3Ps in different tenants, but they have the same ip_pool
18:06:49 <SumitNaiksatam> which they are getting by default
18:06:57 <SumitNaiksatam> and hence it leads to this issue
18:06:59 <SumitNaiksatam> anyway
18:07:18 <SumitNaiksatam> if there are no other high priority bugs to be discussed...
18:07:49 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Packaging
18:07:56 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: last week you mentioned “GBP integration into DeLorean”
18:08:18 <rkukura> right, but I’ve got no response to my queries on the status of this
18:08:20 <SumitNaiksatam> any update on that or anything else?
18:08:33 <rkukura> so no update
18:08:53 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: okay, do we need to consider escalating at this point, or you think we have more time on this?
18:08:55 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: hi
18:09:01 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: hi! :)
18:09:29 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: I’m not sure what’s driving the schedule for the RDO packaging, but the longer we wait, the less likely it is to ever happen
18:10:17 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: okay, let me know if you need any help from me to push this forward, and/or we take this offline to discuss what our options are
18:10:43 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Tests
18:10:49 <SumitNaiksatam> just a quick update from me
18:11:05 <SumitNaiksatam> i have been trying to get the rally integration job to work for the past couple of days
18:11:34 <SumitNaiksatam> our rally branch was woefully out of sync, and its taking some time to catch up with all hte changes that have happened
18:11:46 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard: there?
18:12:12 <SumitNaiksatam> okay may be we will discuss NFP first
18:12:19 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic NFP impl patches
18:12:26 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/gbp-network-services-framework
18:12:37 <igordcard> yep
18:12:55 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: jagadish and team thanks for updating the patches with the relevant co-authors
18:13:11 <hemanthravi> i think gate test should also be running now
18:13:14 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard: ooops, lets get done with NFP, and we can circle back to your patch
18:13:27 <hemanthravi> there are few more impl patches, will be submitted in a day or 2
18:13:44 <igordcard> SumitNaiksatam: sure, wasn't looking when you asked
18:14:02 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: the integration gate job is still broken starting from the first patch #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/282292
18:14:16 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard: np, thanks for your patience
18:14:35 <jagadish> Most of the review comments on base configurator and reference configurator will be submitted in a day
18:14:52 <hemanthravi> SumitNaiksatam: how do i get the logs to this failure?
18:15:14 <hemanthravi> dsvm-functional ?
18:15:32 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: yeah, just click on the job
18:16:12 <hemanthravi> will take a look and resolve it
18:16:18 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: i had already provided comments on what might be broken and what can probably fix it
18:16:48 <SumitNaiksatam> see my comment on May 12th
18:17:25 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: jagadish: i believe there were plans to update this wiki page with more information about the patches: #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/GroupBasedPolicy/GerritQueries/NFP ?
18:17:55 <hemanthravi> SumitNaiksatam: i'm behind on updating the wiki page, will do this
18:18:02 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: okay thanks
18:18:20 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: when you said the gate job is working, what were you referring to?
18:19:36 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: i am referring to your earlier comment “i think gate test should also be running now” (since we did not get a chance to discuss that)
18:19:53 <hemanthravi> don't have the details, but i was told one of the nfp tests ran as part of the gate. I'll confirm this tonight
18:20:08 <jagadish> SumitNaiksatam: The nfp node driver has been pointed in the configuration for the gate tests to run nfp functionality tests.
18:20:21 <hemanthravi> to run haproxy in namesapce
18:21:05 <SumitNaiksatam> jagadish: but the integration job is broken for all the patches and the issue is in the first patch in the chain itself
18:21:23 <SumitNaiksatam> jagadish: also, which patch are you referring to?
18:22:38 <hemanthravi> SumitNaiksatam: will check on this tonight
18:23:12 <hemanthravi> SumitNaiksatam: will check on this tonight
18:23:13 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: okay, my understanding is that we are not replacing any of the current integration tests, we are adding new ones
18:23:46 <jagadish> SumitNaiksatam: Yes. The current ones are not replaced. New ones are added.
18:24:00 <SumitNaiksatam> jagadish: okay good, just wanted to confirm
18:24:14 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: jagadish: at this point are there any blockers for you?
18:25:21 <SumitNaiksatam> perhaps not :-)
18:25:41 <hemanthravi> not a blocker, but the gate tests had to be done without using the plugin but gbp-patch
18:26:00 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: sorry, didnt get that?
18:26:12 <SumitNaiksatam> gbp-patch?
18:26:32 <hemanthravi> the gate tests don't using the devstack plugin but the earlier gbp-patch.sh
18:26:37 <hemanthravi> is that correct?
18:26:40 <jagadish> SumitNaiksatam: Gate tests are done using GBP patch
18:26:58 <jagadish> They don't have devstack plugin support
18:27:04 <hemanthravi> i think this can be addressed later, once we have the nfp gate tests passing
18:27:05 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: jagadish: yes they dont use the devstack plugin, that is expected
18:27:12 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: thats not a problem at all
18:27:28 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: yeah we can address that later
18:28:12 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: jagadish: all the devstack artifacts for the gate tests are contained here: #link https://github.com/openstack/group-based-policy/tree/master/gbpservice/tests/contrib
18:28:59 <hemanthravi> ok
18:29:03 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: jagadish: i believe you are referring to the patching be done here: #link https://github.com/openstack/group-based-policy/blob/master/gbpservice/tests/contrib/functions-gbp ?
18:30:00 <jagadish> SumitNaiksatam: Yes
18:30:09 <SumitNaiksatam> anyone else in the team have questions for hemanthravi and jagadish on NFP patches?
18:30:13 <SumitNaiksatam> jagadish: okay good
18:30:46 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: jagadish : thanks for the update
18:30:59 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic GBP QoS Support
18:31:11 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/301701/
18:31:58 <SumitNaiksatam> just to refresh people’s memories we had merged the spec: #link https://github.com/openstack/group-based-policy-specs/blob/master/specs/mitaka/initial-qos-support.rst
18:32:14 <SumitNaiksatam> and igordcard had proceeded to do the implementation in the feature/qos branch
18:32:27 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard: thanks for your work
18:32:42 <SumitNaiksatam> anyone got a chance to review the implementation?
18:33:02 <rkukura> I started
18:33:09 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: great, thanks
18:33:14 <SumitNaiksatam> i put some preliminary comments
18:33:21 <SumitNaiksatam> nothing major though
18:33:46 <SumitNaiksatam> as long as we are fine the approach (which is stated in the merged spec), i think the implementation is pretty straightforward
18:33:49 <igordcard> thanks, I'll address them
18:34:15 <SumitNaiksatam> so IMHO, its really the approach that we are validating there
18:34:31 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: ivar-lazzaro: it will be helpful if you guys can take a quick look as well
18:34:41 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: +1
18:34:51 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: okay cool
18:35:03 <hemanthravi> SumitNaiksatam: ok
18:35:09 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: thanks
18:35:36 <igordcard> rkukura: ivar-lazzaro hemanthravi thanks
18:35:58 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard: at this point, my understanding is that is a functional implementation, so you are kind of “done” with your implementation for this first iteration?
18:36:20 <SumitNaiksatam> *that this is a functional implementation
18:37:15 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: Are we not planning to merge this implementation, assuming we are all happy with it?
18:37:28 <igordcard> SumitNaiksatam: do you mean if PoC 01 is the end of it?
18:37:39 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: i agree
18:38:03 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: Are you agreeing that we should merge it?
18:38:08 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard: i meant to ask, if PoC 01 is complete, and/or there are any blockers?
18:38:26 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: if we are fine with the approack we should merge it
18:38:34 <rkukura> I agree
18:38:50 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: but i think you are asking if we should merge it to master from the feature branch?
18:38:52 <igordcard> SumitNaiksatam: oh ok, so the patch only adds support for maxrate as a first iteration
18:39:20 <igordcard> SumitNaiksatam: maybe, if it is to be merged to master instead of feature/branch, more work should be done to at least support burstrate as well
18:39:29 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard: i agree
18:39:30 <igordcard> SumitNaiksatam: but still the same style, as in inner-PTG QoS only
18:39:48 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard: were you planning to add burst rate as PoC 2 patch?
18:40:48 <igordcard> SumitNaiksatam: planning to add still to PoC 1 after an initial wave of review since the architecture wouldn't change but I still had to invest a bit of time to make sure both *rates would coexist peacefully
18:40:59 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard: ah okay
18:41:35 <igordcard> SumitNaiksatam: I will add a note about that
18:41:53 <SumitNaiksatam> so i think this is a question for the team - but in my opinion, if we are all fine with this approach, then we can merge the current patch to master, and then have igordcard post the burst rate changes directly to master
18:42:18 <SumitNaiksatam> this is of course after igordcard himself is comfortable that “both *rates would coexist peacefully”
18:42:47 <SumitNaiksatam> i think we are using the feature branch to validate the approach, after that i dont think the overhead of the branch is required
18:43:10 <igordcard> SumitNaiksatam: yeah, but for master I'd prefer to add max and burst together in the same patch
18:43:51 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard: ah okay, so in that case we can merge this patch into the feature/qos branch (after reviews are complete) and wait for you to post the updates for burst rate
18:44:02 <igordcard> SumitNaiksatam: okay
18:44:16 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard: thanks for the update and the work
18:44:28 <igordcard> ;)
18:44:32 <SumitNaiksatam> any other questions for igordcard ?
18:45:04 <SumitNaiksatam> okay
18:45:10 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Open Discussion
18:45:21 <SumitNaiksatam> anything we missed for today’s meeting?
18:45:59 <SumitNaiksatam> if not, we can get 15 mins back :-)
18:46:24 <SumitNaiksatam> alrighty, thanks all for joining (igordcard for staying up late ;-))
18:46:31 <SumitNaiksatam> bye!
18:46:40 <SumitNaiksatam> #endmeeting