15:00:49 #startmeeting neutron_routed_networks 15:00:50 Meeting started Tue Jun 7 15:00:49 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is carl_baldwin. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:00:51 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 15:00:53 The meeting name has been set to 'neutron_routed_networks' 15:00:58 #topic Announcements 15:01:10 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/routed-provider-networks-notes 15:01:34 N-1 is past and I actually think we're pretty close to where I was hoping to be at this point. 15:01:48 ++ 15:01:52 Also, is everyone aware of the mid-cycle planned? 15:02:01 yep 15:02:03 I am 15:02:09 yep 15:02:12 17 - 19 August 15:02:22 yall have fun :) 15:02:32 ^ Please take special note of the dates as they have been changed! 15:02:33 yep 15:03:02 It is going to be Wed - Fri, not Mon - Wed as was originally announced. 15:03:04 This is the etherpad: 15:03:10 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/newton-neutron-midcycle 15:03:22 mlavalle: Thanks! 15:04:06 Any other announcements? 15:04:36 #topic Devstack 15:05:09 I got thinking yesterday that there is a fair amount of manual setup that needs to be done to get a devstack system to work with segments. 15:05:22 I started a patch to hopefully provide some help 15:05:35 great! 15:05:38 #link https://review.openstack.org/326103 15:05:44 It isn't much yet. 15:06:07 I think this complements well what I've been doing with Vagrant 15:06:14 But, hopefully it can evolve in to something helpful. 15:06:38 I am creating a Vagrant setup to to create a multi-node devstack with segments 15:06:40 mlavalle: How's that going? Do you want to add information about what you're doing to this section of the etherpad? 15:06:42 sounds like a great idea 15:07:01 mlavalle: Maybe we can merge these efforts. 15:07:29 carl_baldwin: yes I will add to the etherpad. I expect to port the product to github over the next couple of days 15:07:48 mlavalle: Sounds good. 15:07:51 as always, progress is slower that originally thought :-) 15:08:03 but I am making steady progress 15:08:32 and yes, let's merge these 2 efforts. I'll leverage your patchset 15:08:40 mlavalle: Great. Try to add to the etherpad when you have something that can be shared. 15:08:59 #topic Associating Subnets to Segments 15:09:26 There are a couple of patches in play 15:09:27 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/295173 15:09:48 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/315573/ 15:10:05 I've +2ed the first, it could use another core's eyes. 15:10:11 The second is a client patch. 15:10:20 Needs an update. 15:10:30 I will udpate it in the following days 15:10:39 * honghuixiao_ is xiaohhui 15:10:58 lol 15:11:34 * carl_baldwin didn't even notice honghuixiao_ 's changed nick 15:11:46 Thanks, honghuixiao_ 15:12:01 It is just a temp name, might change back in another restart :) 15:12:05 #topic Deferred IP Allocation on Port Update with Binding Info 15:12:17 This is where I'm working lately. 15:12:41 The IPAM work has been approved 15:12:42 #link https://review.openstack.org/320631 15:12:50 Thanks blogan and haleyb for the great reviews. 15:13:12 I need to work on the Nova side to allow deferred allocation. 15:13:20 And, there is the bug with ML2 15:13:32 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/321152 15:13:53 honghuixiao_: Sounds like you made some progress on this but I haven't had a chance to catch up. 15:14:36 I need to make some change to it, but basically, I can run the test case successfully locally 15:14:38 Sorry to barge in but if there is someone here for the Smaug meeting we are in #openstack-meeting-3 . We were sure it's an even week so we assume the room will be ours. Sorry for interrupting. 15:15:02 saggi: No worries. Thanks. 15:15:45 honghuixiao_: Cool, let me know when you have a patch set up. 15:15:48 honghuixiao_: Great work. 15:16:06 I think the code is self-explanated, it is simple 15:16:07 So, I think this is going well. 15:17:12 I'm also going to get started on adding a flag to the port so that Nova can know when to allow deferred ip allocation. I think that'll be easy once I get to it. 15:17:39 That's all from me for this. Anyone else? 15:17:49 #topic Schedule DHCP to Segments and Create DHCP ports 15:17:55 blogan: You're up. 15:18:05 so i split the original review into 2 15:18:20 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/326261/ 15:18:38 that's pretty straightforward 15:18:51 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/311931 15:19:07 that one is the one where the most discussion is going to happen, as it already has :) 15:19:25 So, for a network with multiple segments, and no segment_subnet in it, we will only have one dhcp service for the network, right?(assuming config to 1) 15:19:36 i need to read honghuixiao_'s latest comments more in depth, its morning for me :) 15:19:37 yeah, that is me adding the comments, :P 15:20:22 honghuixiao_: you mean multiple segments and no segment has a dhcp enabled subnet? 15:20:52 yes, just the orignal muti-provider network. 15:21:02 honghuixiao_: That sounds about right. 15:21:39 What distinguishes a routed network is the subnets are attached to segments. If DHCP enabled subnets are not attached to segments, then they should work as before. 15:22:02 So, we should not delete the dhcp port in the segment automatically. Because that will cause the dhcp service unusable for the network. 15:22:26 it'll make it unusable just for that segment 15:22:35 a dhcp port should be created per segment 15:22:43 an agent per segment 15:23:38 honghuixiao_: Is there a comment about this already in the review? If so, do you have a link to it? 15:23:55 1 sec 15:24:20 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/317358/4/neutron/plugins/ml2/db.py 15:24:24 line 340 15:24:36 it's totally possible, and probable, that i'm uninformed on some of this 15:24:47 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/317358/4/neutron/plugins/ml2/db.py@340 15:25:22 learned, the link can be used this way 15:26:27 honghuixiao_: I don't know why they didn't use the standard HTML anchor (e.g. #L340) 15:26:29 * mlavalle also just learned this 15:26:42 so segment should be able to be deleted if there is only the dhcp port bound to it correct? 15:27:08 I think the that is the result of discussion in previous mail list 15:27:35 honghuixiao_: and your concern is that there is only one dhcp port per network? 15:27:52 yes, that is the original logic 15:28:04 And it is what I see when debug it 15:28:11 I think we might need to consider what kind of network it is (routed or not) 15:28:42 so a routed network, is the one with subnets associated with segments, right? 15:28:52 honghuixiao_: if each segment gets its own dhcp port would that solve the problem? i thought that already happens, but now you have me doubting myself :) 15:28:57 honghuixiao_: Right, that is the distinguisher. 15:29:28 blogan: I think what you're saying is right *if* the network is a routed network. 15:29:44 carl_baldwin: yes 15:30:11 But, if this code is also handling L2 adjacent networks, then it might need to be a little bit smarter. 15:30:29 I'd like to give the review a little more thought though before I'm sure. 15:30:56 carl_baldwin: what do you mean? 15:32:11 blogan: I'm not sure this code can assume it is working with a routed network. 15:32:33 blogan: If it isn't, and that DHCP port is the only one serving a multi-segmented network, it might be bad to delete it. 15:32:41 honghuixiao_: ^ Is this kind of what you're thinking? 15:32:50 yes, 15:32:55 that makes sense 15:33:18 carl_baldwin: it should work the same if there are no segments 15:33:25 i mean the same as before 15:33:45 blogan: Segments couldn't be deleted before. 15:34:00 yeah, we open the gate to operate segments now... 15:34:21 ah 15:34:25 sorry , some problem with my IRC, gets connection intermittently 15:34:55 We have to be careful because we're adding the capability to add / delete segments for both routed networks and L2 adjacent networks. 15:35:20 honghuixiao_: Is it okay if we provide feedback on that review a bit later? 15:35:29 sure, 15:35:37 I, for one, would like to let it sink in a little and then comment. 15:35:41 okay i think i see where the problem might be, ill need to run through some testing of this to get a better grasp on it 15:36:05 honghuixiao_: Thanks for bringing it up. It will be good to think this through. 15:36:12 +1 15:36:18 :) 15:36:34 blogan: honghuixiao_ : Anything else on DHCP? 15:36:50 nope 15:36:52 blogan: Thanks for updating the etherpad, that will be very helpful. 15:36:56 I also leave a comment in the review, but I think it is OK to go on there 15:37:08 etherpad link please ? 15:37:24 manjeets: ^^^ It is the first link in the meeting. 15:37:41 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/routed-provider-networks-notes 15:37:48 thanks carl_baldwin: 15:37:58 manjeets: glad to help 15:38:01 #topic Integration with Nova Scheduler 15:38:16 I should've announced that the spec was merged! 15:38:26 mlavalle: Thanks for all of your help on that. 15:38:35 glad to help :-) 15:38:53 good job! 15:39:00 We have a few dependencies. Any way we can help there? 15:39:08 the challenge was not to miss the boat for Newton 15:39:47 The focus shifts now from specs to tracking code 15:40:22 I am tracking the new placement api 15:40:28 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/293104/ 15:40:45 mlavalle: Are there some gerrit topics that we could link to the etherpad. 15:41:07 Yes I will add them 15:41:18 essentially, 2 topics 15:41:33 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/generic-resource-pools 15:42:00 This is for the generic resource pools 15:42:14 and the changes to allocate_for_instance: 15:42:22 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/prep-for-network-aware-scheduling,n,z 15:42:46 last check, johnthetubaguy hasn't posted any code yet for this one 15:42:58 mlavalle: Excellent. Let's stay on top of those. I'll try to work them in to my review routine. 15:43:18 Yes, we can help with reviews 15:43:39 and I have offered to johnthetubaguy to help with code if he thinks he needs it 15:44:04 yeah, I hope to start on that ASAP 15:44:12 In the meantime, as soon as I have the vagrant multinode test environment ready, I will strat playing with the code that is in gerrit 15:44:35 mlavalle: Sounds like a good plan. 15:45:07 mlavalle: johnthetubaguy: Anything else for discussion? 15:45:17 not from me 15:45:40 not from me either really 15:45:53 Thanks! 15:45:57 #topic L2 Adjacency Extension 15:46:28 reedip doesn't seem to be around. I'll ping him out of band. 15:46:41 #topic Enable Create / Delete of Segments on Existing Network 15:46:50 he pushed a revision to his patchset 15:47:01 #undo 15:47:01 Removing item from minutes: 15:47:05 mlavalle: He did? 15:47:10 yeah 15:47:17 give me sec 15:47:55 I guess I've already reviewed it so I didn't think it was new. But, it has been in the last week. 15:48:50 #topic Enable Create / Delete of Segments on Existing Network 15:49:13 honghuixiao_: We've already started in to this a bit. Anything else? 15:49:27 just need more reviews to it 15:49:28 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/317358 15:49:57 Then nothing else 15:51:13 honghuixiao_: ack and thank you. 15:51:36 #topic Client 15:52:18 rtheis: Anything need attention? 15:52:18 hi 15:52:51 I merged a fix to the OSC client for network segments 15:53:04 I would like to get to create/delete later this week 15:53:17 and look at associating subnets to segments 15:53:44 that's all for now 15:54:10 rtheis: Thanks, I am trying to watch the etherpad, keep it up to date as things change. 15:54:15 #topic OVN plugin 15:54:24 Anything to discuss here? 15:54:31 OVN is now ML2 driver as of Friday 15:54:47 Awesome! 15:54:54 I'm working on some ML2 related fixes and enhancements now. 15:55:12 and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/302623/ is out for review...lots of activity on it 15:55:51 yeah, that is for geting the segment_host_maping for ovn now. Kyle is helping push the code forward 15:56:04 Thanks, mestery ! 15:56:13 yw carl_baldwin :) 15:56:19 Though see comments on that patch honghuixiao_ .... 15:56:26 regXboi brough up an issue 15:57:00 time check, we're almost done. 15:57:13 Anything else needs attention here? 15:58:00 #topic Router External Gateways on Routed Networks 15:58:21 john-davidge has shown some interest in looking in to this. 15:58:35 Yeah, it would be good to get some eyes back on #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/300207 and the thread on the ML 15:58:52 we have a dependency on that spec going ahead 15:59:11 Yeah, that thread kind of died. Do you have a link to it? 15:59:36 i resurrected it a couple hours ago, but let me dig up the link 15:59:51 john-davidge: I need to get caught up on the mailing list today. 16:00:09 We're out of time. 16:00:12 Thanks! 16:00:17 #endmeeting