14:00:32 #startmeeting neutron_l3 14:00:32 Meeting started Wed May 13 14:00:32 2020 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is liuyulong. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:00:33 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 14:00:35 The meeting name has been set to 'neutron_l3' 14:01:04 #topic Announcements 14:01:14 #link https://releases.openstack.org/ussuri/index.html 14:01:46 Ussuri Released today, congratulations! 14:05:11 #link https://launchpad.net/neutron/ussuri 14:05:34 Just confirmed the LP ussuri series 14:06:51 Most of the are fully fixed/implemented. 14:06:53 #link https://docs.openstack.org/releasenotes/neutron/ussuri.html 14:07:18 This is the neutron project release note for Ussuri. 14:07:57 Here are something I'd like to highlight: 14:08:13 1) Python 2 is no longer supported, this is the community goal. 14:08:30 hi, sorry i'm late 14:08:53 2) The networking-ovn mechanism driver is built-in now in Neutron repo. 14:10:12 3) Some long-term bug are fixed now, such as the flooding issue in ovs intergration bridge. 14:10:18 haleyb, hi 14:11:09 That's all from me about the information/announcement of the project, thank you all for your contribution to the community! 14:12:09 I have a long bug list since we have two weeks lack of discussion. So let's move on. 14:12:23 #topic Bugs 14:12:38 #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2020-May/014660.html 14:12:46 #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2020-May/014794.html 14:13:27 These are the list from bug deputy in last two weeks. 14:13:56 Thanks to Akihiro and Miguel. 14:13:59 First one: 14:14:08 #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1876092 14:14:08 Launchpad bug 1876092 in neutron "DVR with Flat network result in ICMP reply DUP" [Undecided,In progress] - Assigned to yangjianfeng (yangjianfeng) 14:15:38 This should be a nice enhancement since yangjianfeng has submitted the implementation of the Flat network support for DVR. 14:16:45 #link https://review.opendev.org/#/c/726044/ 14:16:45 patch 726044 - neutron - Make DVR router support FLAT network for ovs-agent - 7 patch sets 14:16:58 This is the code. 14:17:17 I have not test the code yet, but I'm OK with the approach. 14:18:03 So maybe this can be raised to the drivers meeting for more discussion because this is more like a new feature for neutron. 14:19:02 And another thing should be considered this may introduce a potential gap for OVN and OVS. (I don't know the status of flat network supporting for DVR in OVN deployment) 14:19:42 Maybe such support can be implemented for OVN as well. 14:20:09 OK, next one 14:20:11 #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1877404 14:20:11 Launchpad bug 1877404 in neutron "Add "qos_policy_id" field to "FloatingIP" OVO" [Medium,Fix released] - Assigned to Rodolfo Alonso (rodolfo-alonso-hernandez) 14:20:11 yes, we could add it to the known gaps, think there's an in-tree doc 14:20:52 haleyb, pong, +1, np 14:21:12 This attribute have been added to floating IP。 14:21:37 #link https://review.opendev.org/#/c/726208/ 14:21:38 patch 726208 - neutron - Add "qos_policy_id" field to "FloatingIP" OVO (MERGED) - 4 patch sets 14:22:05 We are in a efficient team. : ) 14:22:40 yes, there is a lot of work getting done :) 14:22:51 And, mostly, this attribute is for the next bug(rfe): 14:23:17 #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1877408 14:23:17 Launchpad bug 1877408 in neutron "Implement FIP QoS in OVN backend" [Medium,In progress] - Assigned to Rodolfo Alonso (rodolfo-alonso-hernandez) 14:23:28 I need to address some comments there 14:23:33 (sorry for being late) 14:23:47 but seems to work 14:24:04 # https://review.opendev.org/#/c/722415/ 14:24:04 patch 722415 - neutron - [OVN] Implement floating IP QoS in OVN backend - 9 patch sets 14:24:33 For the qos support for floating IP in OVN, honestly, I've seen at least 3 different implementations. : ) 14:25:03 I know 14:25:14 and, IMO, the other ones do not cover all cases 14:25:27 (policy update, port changes, etc) 14:25:49 #link https://review.opendev.org/#/c/712239/ 14:25:50 patch 712239 - neutron - [OVN]floating IP QoS. - 5 patch sets 14:26:30 ralonsoh, sure, I'm adding myself to the reviewers list 14:27:37 ralonsoh, so maybe you should inform the others that there are a more proper implementation for them to stop the rotation of their works. 14:27:47 liuyulong, I'll do 14:28:04 actually I'll tell them to join one single implementation 14:28:12 I don't mind which one (I prefer mine) 14:28:15 but just one 14:28:29 (adding all of them to the coders list) 14:29:22 OK, cool 14:29:32 Next 14:29:36 #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1877447 14:29:36 Launchpad bug 1877447 in neutron "Add TCP/UDP port forwarding extension to OVN" [Wishlist,In progress] - Assigned to Flavio Fernandes (ffernand) 14:29:54 Filling gaps, so +1 to me 14:30:29 #link https://review.opendev.org/#/c/723863/ 14:30:29 patch 723863 - neutron - WIP (DNM): [ovn]: port forwarding functionality - 15 patch sets 14:30:34 This is the patch set. 14:31:47 So I don't this need to be discuss in drivers meeting, we can let it go forward simply and quickly. Because we are efficient. : ) 14:32:32 OK, next 14:32:35 #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1876898 14:32:35 Launchpad bug 1876898 in neutron "L3 agent should reports enabled extensions to the server" [Low,Fix released] - Assigned to Slawek Kaplonski (slaweq) 14:33:18 It is fixed and in all stable branches now. 14:33:40 Thanks to Slawek. 14:34:15 Last one from the deputy's list: 14:34:17 #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1877301 14:34:17 Launchpad bug 1877301 in neutron "[RFE] L3 Router support ndp proxy" [Wishlist,Confirmed] 14:35:55 I may say, few months ago, I bring up the IPv6 topic in the L3 meeting. And this should be talked once. 14:36:55 before we had prefix delegation there was a POC using proxy NDP, I wonder if I can find those patches if it matters 14:37:55 Found it 14:37:57 #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/neutron_l3/2019/neutron_l3.2019-09-04-14.00.log.html#l-84 14:38:49 and this 14:38:50 #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/neutron_l3/2019/neutron_l3.2019-09-11-14.00.log.html#l-87 14:40:16 that wasn't the patch i was thinking of, i'll have to search 14:40:20 So basically, this is something mentioned in this spec: 14:40:27 #link https://review.opendev.org/#/c/139731/2/specs/kilo/ipv6-floatingip.rst 14:40:27 patch 139731 - neutron-specs - Support Floatingip for IPv6 (ABANDONED) - 2 patch sets 14:41:35 yes, we're getting closer, it was Robert that sent the neutron patches 14:42:24 https://review.opendev.org/#/c/143917/ 14:42:24 patch 143917 - neutron - A conceptual implementation of neutron DVR (ABANDONED) - 5 patch sets 14:42:49 Yep 14:43:00 there is some proxy_ndp code in there. more of a reference 14:46:16 So according to the use case, this is somewhat like the floating IPv6. 14:46:51 and we've been trying to stay away from IPv6 NAT 14:47:12 "openstack router add ndp proxy --address " this is command from the bug. 14:47:36 It has a some similar input like floating ip. 14:49:13 right, but there is no NAT or conntrack 14:49:19 Floating IP is set on router's leg, and NAT. This new IPv6 address ndp_proxy is something like, IPv6 address is reachable on the router interface (Neigh Proxy). 14:51:31 yes. and the assumption is that the upstream router will send a ND for this IPv6 address on the link where this neutron router exists 14:52:26 eg it as a /52 route going to this network, each neutron router using a /64 in it 14:53:22 Yes, it should have a large IPv6 network plane. 14:53:36 the one problem with this is neighbor table explosion, for example each instance could cause an entry on this upstream router, where with PD there is only one per /64 14:55:16 i know with the bgp way it would be one route per instance, but i thought routers could deal with lots of routes 14:55:23 I guess the bug may miss a condition which is for those unauthorized IPv6 Address, the external world should be unreachable. 14:56:03 So, who have this ndp proxy, who will have access from/to the public internet. 14:56:21 Yes, more like a floating IPv6 again. 14:57:14 today, without proxy NDP or PD, an instance can send IPv6 traffic to the Internet, it just might not receive it. I don't think we should change that 14:57:31 this is assuming the address scopes, etc are valid 14:57:46 But from other perspective, for the easy use, this approach could save the operation of the physical router Prefix Delegation/ bgp. It could be simple to use for small cloud deployment. 14:58:28 yes, i think it has a use case there 14:59:27 So, maybe this can be raised to drivers meeting for further discussion. 14:59:55 I'm neutral. : ) 15:00:29 i'll add more notes to the bug 15:00:39 OK, we are out of time. 15:00:48 Thank you guys for attending. 15:00:53 #endmeeting