13:00:24 #startmeeting tricircle 13:00:25 Meeting started Wed Aug 5 13:00:24 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is zhipeng. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 13:00:26 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 13:00:29 The meeting name has been set to 'tricircle' 13:00:37 hi 13:00:38 #topic Roll Call 13:00:44 hello everyone 13:00:51 #info zhipeng 13:00:53 #info gampel 13:00:54 #info joehuang 13:01:04 #info saggi 13:01:12 #info zhiyuan 13:01:38 :) 13:01:58 #topic Action Item Review 13:02:24 #info Keystone part has been updated into the google doc 13:02:45 joehuang could you provide the link again? 13:03:14 #link https://docs.google.com/document/d/19BXf0RhkH8wEEymE2eHHqoDZ67gnzgvpr3atk4qwdGs/edit#heading=h.5r6zgqbiehsh 13:03:25 it is link in the launchpad blueprint "new-design" 13:03:29 #info keystone federation has not been tried yet 13:04:09 #info irenab 13:04:13 #info keystone federation should have a lower priority in our development 13:04:26 welcome irenab :) 13:04:33 hey :-) 13:04:44 hi 13:04:54 hi irenab 13:05:10 hi 13:05:29 hi zhipeng 13:05:49 could you list the AI in last meeting 13:06:18 update the doc for how to work with KeyStone, joehuang gampel check what mistral supports and which taskflow we want in the reference implementation discuss pluggable cascade service module on bottom 13:06:43 to use mistral or not 13:07:04 gampel have you checked that out ? 13:07:09 Mistral support response 13:07:11 and pluggable bottom cascade service 13:07:32 let's take care of taskflow first :) 13:07:47 if a bootvm task is assigned to mistral 13:08:11 So I think that the best will be to create a pluggable flow compiler + taskflow 13:08:14 can we get the regarding port/volume information from the response 13:08:31 Yes 13:08:56 we can define what we response in the task flow definition 13:09:04 #info gampel think that the best will be to create a pluggable flow compiler + taskflow 13:10:40 For the first implementation reference we could use Mistral or to reuse the POC implementation 13:11:29 Joe can you please describe the POC taskflow execution and if it is possible to integrate it 13:12:05 I am still afraid the risk in using mistral for some task, but I can not be sure which one will be risk 13:12:55 in PoC, no task flow used, just code the logic 13:13:02 we could start with a reference implementation using built in neutron -nova clients 13:13:10 joehuang: We are working closely we minstral developers so they could add thing that are missing 13:13:42 joehuang: Also, having the Task Compiler and Task Executor pluggable will allow us to have alternative implementations as well 13:14:11 in order to make the development process simple, we need to first create the pluggable module 13:14:12 for example, bootvm will have to check image, create volume, create port, if possible, replicate image required 13:14:39 agree. we can use plugin in the taskflow 13:15:01 so that different implemention is possible 13:15:02 this is no problem with mistral but we could start with a reference plugging that use built in clients 13:15:33 ok, use built-in client first 13:16:08 #info start with a reference plugging that use built in clients 13:16:23 sorry, built-in client here means client in Mistral? 13:17:01 pythonclient for nova/ciner/neutron? 13:17:08 no i mean the same as you used in the POC build in library for nova/neutron 13:17:21 should be what joe suggested 13:17:26 ok 13:17:52 got it 13:18:29 so next topic, the bottom cascade service and status sync 13:19:25 ok. I remember some risk 13:19:34 as we started discussing in last meeting we think that the status should be pushed by a bottom cascading service 13:19:38 recall, not remember 13:19:56 for IP address management in the cascading layer 13:20:26 so the IP address will be done in the neutron api server 13:20:45 i am not sure i follow ? 13:21:15 and the allocaled ip address/mac should be used in calling the bottom neutron 13:21:53 you are talking about the inter cloud connectivity (l2GW) 13:22:27 no, just bootvm process 13:22:50 ok. I'll describe it in the mail-list, to see if we can use mistral in the process 13:23:49 Ok i though we changed the topic 13:23:59 ok 13:24:01 joehuang: the bottom cascade service is supposed to address the need of having multi-site information at the bottom layer 13:24:14 joehuang: We need that for the l2gw 13:24:27 joehuang: We will probably need that for storage sync as well 13:24:50 the idea is that it will provide 1) l2GW 2) notification 3) ... 13:24:52 L2GW is an extention of neutron or seperated in the cascade service? 13:25:10 part of the bottom service 13:25:21 zhipeng: correct 13:25:26 the cascading service will implement the API if they are suitable 13:25:29 have you read the mail I sent in the m-l 13:26:07 how to notify the vm/volume/port status to the cascading service 13:26:13 the l2GW implementation does not fit inter cloud connectivity it is for HW connection 13:26:44 yes. if's for overlay and underlay networking 13:26:56 not for cross neutron overlay networking 13:27:57 how to get and send the vm/volume/port status to the cascade service 13:28:14 I started looking into if we could reuse the API extent what we are missing or do we need a completely different API for inter cloud connectivity 13:28:51 it could be done in few ways the simplest will be to call the cascading service API 13:29:45 how will the bottom cascade service get these status 13:30:25 Sorry, clicked the X button by mistake :) 13:30:41 welcome back 13:30:58 we will have a full design of the bottom in the document but the idea is that you have pluggable implementation for different Networking Plugins 13:32:31 in order to subscribe to the changes 13:32:47 I think cross neutron L2 networking should be an extention of neutron. it may be different from current L2GW 13:32:56 how to subscribe 13:33:10 listen the message bus 13:33:28 some even of status change has not been sent yet 13:34:08 I think that we should not focus on what we agree and define the next development steps and divide the work what is missing and leave the design to the mail list 13:35:26 but we need to think about what should be included in the cascade service, and is it feasible 13:36:52 introducing a new service in the bottom layer will change the the bottom openstack distribution deployment 13:36:52 sure I agree, but what do you think is not feasible we can discuss this in the mail list and focus here on the tasks we have and status 13:37:27 That is why we are suggesting a single bottom cascade service to consolidate the changes 13:37:31 at the bottom layer 13:38:15 it would be better if no touch in bottom layer 13:38:41 zhiyuan suggest have a job creator in the top cascade service 13:38:50 joehuang: I agree, but there is no avoiding it for network connectivity 13:39:20 if we can have this extention in Neutron, then all distribution will include it 13:39:21 you will need to add an local agent that do not modify all the other services in order to have some thing that could scale 13:39:21 #action discuss bottom cascade service design in mailinglist 13:39:40 I agree 13:39:46 let's discuss this in detail in mailinglist 13:39:49 :) 13:40:02 polling doen't mean not scaling. 13:40:10 #topic patch work discussion 13:40:14 ok 13:40:30 zhiyuan and saggi have been working several patches 13:40:43 and joehuang gampel all comment on them 13:40:50 anything we need to address here? 13:41:05 I am working on the cascade service rest api framework 13:41:11 and test framework 13:41:18 dal, networking-tricircle 13:41:27 joehuang would that be new BPs ? 13:41:47 I got a comment that sent me back to the drawing board. I'm now placing the nova hook in the same layer as the cells management. 13:41:52 yes, new bp and under the new-design bp umbrella 13:42:34 #info joehuang is working on the cascade service rest api and test framework 13:42:37 ok, place the hook in the nova API 13:42:59 #info saggi now placing the nova hook in the same layer as the cells management 13:43:11 we are missing in the DAL assess to the resources like get_network( .....) will return the net data from the Neutron and all the mapping data 13:43:13 and just to replace the nova-api RPC call to conductor and compute 13:43:39 joehuang: exactly 13:44:01 joehuang: It is less of a clean cut than I hoped it would be though 13:44:35 joehuang: I still need to duplicate a lot of the code. But cells seems to duplicate it as well so I guess it's as intended. 13:44:58 access the data for get_network is a rpc to call neutron api, then to neutron dal 13:45:16 or directly call neutron dal 13:45:23 i think it should use neutron API 13:45:58 I think that the DAL should use the neutron API in the context of the caller 13:46:15 zhiyuan any suggestion from your side ? 13:46:20 It should use the neturon API. We don't want to depend on the DB schema, it changes to frequently and is not supported 13:46:26 to the TOP neutron 13:46:49 will it produce some loopback? 13:47:13 i do not think it will we will only can info request ? 13:47:25 not actions and we forward only actions 13:47:53 so dal provides api to access top layer resources? 13:48:03 and internal DB 13:48:18 it collects the needed information from all data sources 13:48:22 some issue here 13:48:57 what issue ? 13:49:06 for tenant user, some network / port information can't be retrieved through tenant information 13:49:28 for example, provider network informantion, vlan segmentation id 13:49:44 and port information like port binding 13:49:52 why do you need the segmentation id in the DAL 13:50:13 because api layer will filter some fields to the client 13:51:46 we need the DAL in order to reconstruct the missing resources, I am not sure i understand which resource info we are missing 13:51:47 segmention id is not required if we do not want have same segmentation id and provider network type between the top layer and the bottom layer 13:52:30 We can't control the segmentation ID in the bottom layer 13:52:32 using the provider API to set the segmentation ID is not a very good approach in my opinion 13:53:11 you must use admin context and it will not work with all implementation some do not have segmentation id 13:53:13 so we will only provide vxlan network in the top layer? 13:53:56 if we only use vxlan network, it'll be ok. no need for segmentation id mapping 13:54:24 and some port fileds will be only visible to admin context 13:55:00 for the TOP layer it does not really matter vxlan or not 13:55:45 are there other resource info that we could not get using the tenant context ? 13:58:01 :gampel do you have a list of resources that need to be retrieved so we can check if it can be done by tenant context? 13:58:32 yes, one by one 13:58:54 this is the design work we started doing on the resource mapping in the document 13:59:33 so let's fill those in the document, and see if anything is missing or redundant 13:59:35 we have an image with tree represent the Nova-Neutron resource and their dependencies 14:00:43 #action gampel to have a list of resources that need to be retrieved so we can check if it can be done by tenant context in the design work on resource mapping 14:00:55 the external network and IP/ port management ? 14:00:58 Ok i think that the next task on the DAL should be base template for one resource (lets say network) 14:01:02 would this be ok? :) 14:01:13 floating ip 14:01:51 network/router is tenant level concept 14:02:07 then we can easily add all the rest it should read the net data for neutron and the net mapping form the local DB 14:02:15 but for external network / floating ip belongs to admin context 14:02:43 ok let's discuss this via design doc 14:02:51 seg also tenant level resource 14:03:00 time is running up :) 14:03:25 thanks 14:03:46 thanks guys, great session today 14:03:51 #endmeeting