14:00:14 <mlavalle> #startmeeting neutron_drivers
14:00:15 <openstack> Meeting started Fri Jun  7 14:00:14 2019 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is mlavalle. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:00:16 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:00:18 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'neutron_drivers'
14:00:26 <slaweq_> hi
14:00:36 <yamamoto> hi
14:00:44 <tidwellr> hi
14:01:13 <mlavalle> hi everybody
14:01:16 <njohnston> o/
14:01:24 <ralonsoh> hi
14:01:25 <mlavalle> let's wait a couple of minutes
14:01:26 <davidsha> Hey
14:01:47 <janders> hi all
14:02:44 <amotoki> hi
14:03:27 <mlavalle> #topic RFEs
14:03:34 <mlavalle> ok, let's get going
14:03:49 <mlavalle> First up today is https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1830240
14:03:50 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1830240 in neutron "[RFE] Allow subnets from different subnet pools on the same network when using address scopes" [Wishlist,New]
14:05:37 <janders> would you be happy to chat about https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1829449 early in the meeting? That would allow me to drop out early - it's past midnight here in East Coast Australia
14:05:39 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1829449 in neutron "Implement consistency check and self-healing for SDN-managed fabrics" [Wishlist,New]
14:07:20 <mlavalle> is that ok with you tidwellr
14:07:22 <mlavalle> ?
14:07:46 <tidwellr> that's fine, let's dive into that first. It's more interesting anyway :)
14:08:04 <janders> thank you :)
14:08:13 <slaweq> so this https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1830240 requires changes in API/DB side only, is my understanding correct?
14:08:14 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1830240 in neutron "[RFE] Allow subnets from different subnet pools on the same network when using address scopes" [Wishlist,New]
14:08:16 <mlavalle> janders: I left you a note last night, my time
14:08:44 <mlavalle> slaweq: we'll get back to that RFE in a few minutes
14:08:55 <slaweq> mlavalle: ok
14:09:26 <mlavalle> janders: does it make sense to you to pursue adding your use case to the spec under review?
14:09:47 <janders> from my perspective - yes
14:09:56 <janders> I was wondering what you guys think?
14:10:12 <janders> would the addition of the "remove stale entries" functionality fit into the proposed spec?
14:10:36 <mlavalle> I think it does
14:10:42 <amotoki> it makes sense to me
14:10:58 <janders> that's great to hear
14:11:09 <mlavalle> the ongoing spec's title is "Add spec for SBI database consistency"
14:11:41 <mlavalle> which describes perfectly the situation you describe in note #7
14:12:01 <amotoki> https://review.opendev.org/#/c/565463/ is the spec we are mentioning.
14:12:17 <mlavalle> amotoki: thanks :-)
14:12:24 <slaweq> +1 for adding it to mentioned spec
14:12:37 <janders> ok! given we agree, would you like me to add an appropriate comment against the spec?
14:13:31 <mlavalle> janders: yes, please go ahead and add a comment to that spec. I'll monitor it and as soon as you leave your comment, I will add a comment of my own supporting your proposal
14:13:55 <janders> ok! thank you mlavalle
14:14:00 <amotoki> janders: it would appreciated. especially the problem statement would be important.
14:14:08 <haleyb> hi, sorry for being late
14:14:19 <janders> that's all I had in regards to SDN consistency for now
14:14:29 <janders> thank you so much for looking into this, I appreciate your help
14:14:33 <mlavalle> janders: thanks for the follow up
14:14:41 <janders> no worries
14:15:07 <mlavalle> and thanks to tidwellr for ceding his first position in the line. Last week we didn't have quorum and promised him to be first today
14:16:29 <mlavalle> so now, we go back to https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1830240
14:16:30 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1830240 in neutron "[RFE] Allow subnets from different subnet pools on the same network when using address scopes" [Wishlist,New]
14:17:13 <tidwellr> slaweq: to answer your earlier question, yes this is all work on the API
14:17:29 <slaweq> tidwellr: ok
14:18:55 <slaweq> for me this RFE looks reasonable
14:19:18 <amotoki> this sounds reasonable to me (though I am trying to refresh my memory on address scope and subnetpools...)
14:19:48 <mlavalle> yes, I am ok with this RFE as well
14:19:53 <tidwellr> the idea is that the current restrictions in place are meant to enforce a level prefix uniqueness and were put in place before address scopes. Relaxing this a little bit to let the address scope enforce prefix uniqueness is what I'm going for
14:20:49 <njohnston> makes sense to me
14:20:54 <haleyb> +1
14:22:29 <yamamoto> +1
14:22:38 <mlavalle> cool
14:23:00 <mlavalle> that's all we had to discuss today
14:23:07 <mlavalle> anything else we should talk about?
14:23:17 * mlavalle marking the RFE approved
14:24:03 <mlavalle> tidwellr: it's approved. Thanks for the submission
14:24:14 <tidwellr> thanks
14:24:18 <mlavalle> and I wish everybody a very happy weekend
14:24:23 <mlavalle> thanks for attending
14:24:26 <mlavalle> o/
14:24:27 <njohnston> o/
14:24:30 <amotoki> o/
14:24:32 <mlavalle> #endmeeting