July 2023 - openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

[designate] Proposal to deprecate the agent framework and agent based backends
by Michael Johnson 09 Jan '24

09 Jan '24

TLDR: The Designate team would like to deprecate the backend agent framework and the agent based backends due to lack of development and design issues with the current implementation. The following backends would be deprecated: Bind9 (Agent), Denominator, Microsoft DNS (Agent), Djbdns (Agent), Gdnsd (Agent), and Knot2 (Agent). Designate includes many backend DNS server drivers[1], many of which are "native" (also known as xfr type backends) backend implementations. In addition to the "native" backends, Designate has an agent backend[2] that supports other backends via an agent process. To quote the agent backend documentation[2]: This backend uses an extension[3] of the DNS protocol itself to send management requests to the remote agent processes, where the requests will be actioned. The rpc traffic between designate and the agent is both unauthenticated and unencrypted. Do not run this traffic over unsecured networks. Here are the reasons we are proposing to deprecate the agent framework now: 1. The agent protocol used by Designate is using an "unassigned"[4][5] DNS opcode (14) that is causing problems with the dnspython library >= 2.3.0 which is now validating the opcode when building DNS messages. It is a bad practice to use "unassigned" values as they may be officially assigned at any time, likely with an incompatible message format. 2. The agent backends are not tested in the OpenStack jobs[1]. 3. Many of the agent backends have been marked as "Experimental" since 2016 with no additional contributions beyond general repository code maintenance. 4. The protocol between the Designate worker process and the agent process is unauthenticated and unencrypted. 5. We do not know of a development resource to rewrite the agent framework protocol to address issue #1 and #4 above. 6. The introduction of catalog zones[6] may eliminate the need for some of the agent based backend drivers. By marking the agent framework and agent based backends "deprecated" in the Antelope cycle, we would remove the code no earlier than the "C" release of OpenStack (per the OpenStack deprecation policy[7]). In the meantime, issue #1 has been worked around by overriding the dnspython opcode validation[7] as needed in the Designate code (similar to a monkey patch). This is not a sustainable long term solution. The following backend agent based drivers would be marked "deprecated" in addition to the agent framework itself: Bind9 (Agent) Denominator Microsoft DNS (Agent) Djbdns (Agent) Gdnsd (Agent) Knot2 (Agent) We plan to propose patches for the deprecation over the next week, but will not merge them until at least January 24th to allow time for comment from the community. If you have concerns about this deprecation plan or are interested in rewriting the agent framework protocol to address the above issues, please reply to this announcement. Michael [1] https://docs.openstack.org/designate/latest/admin/support-matrix.html [2] https://docs.openstack.org/designate/latest/admin/backends/agent.html [3] https://github.com/openstack/designate/blob/master/designate/backend/privat… [4] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6895.html#section-2.2 [5] https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/dns-parameters.xhtml#dns-pa… [6] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-08.txt [7] https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/deprecation.html [8] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/designate/+/870678

3 13

[OPENSTACK][rabbitmq] using quorum queues
by Nguyễn Hữu Khôi 17 Oct '23

17 Oct '23

Hello guys. IS there any guy who uses the quorum queue for openstack? Could you give some feedback to compare with classic queue? Thank you. Nguyen Huu Khoi

9 19

[ptl][tc][winstackers] Final call for Winstackers PTL and maintainers
by James Page 11 Sep '23

11 Sep '23

Hi All As announced by Lucian last November (see [0]) Cloudbase Solutions are no longer in a position to maintain support for running OpenStack on Windows and have also ceased operation of their 3rd party CI for the windows support across a number of OpenStack projects. This situation has resulted in the Winstackers project becoming PTL-less for the 2023.2 cycle with no volunteers responding to the TC's call to fill this role and take this feature in OpenStack forward (see [1]). This is the final call for any maintainers to step forward if this feature is important to them in OpenStack. The last user survey in 2022 indicated that 2% of respondents were running on Hyper-V so this might be important enough to warrant a commitment from someone operating OpenStack on Windows to maintain these features going forward. Here is a reminder from Lucian's original email on the full list of projects which are impacted in some way: * nova hyper-v driver - in-tree plus out-of-tree compute-hyperv driver * os-win - common Windows library for Openstack * neutron hyperv ml2 plugin and agent * ovs on Windows and neutron ovs agent support * cinder drivers - SMB and Windows iSCSI * os-brick Windows connectors - iSCSI, FC, SMB, RBD * ceilometer Windows poller * manila Windows driver * glance Windows support * freerdp gateway The lack of 3rd party CI for testing all of this really needs to be addressed as well. If no maintainers are forthcoming between now and the next PTG in June the TC will need to officially retire the project and start the process of removing support for Windows across the various projects that support this operating system in some way - either directly or through the use of os-win. For clarity this call refers to the use of the Hyper-V virtualisation driver and associated Windows server components to provide WIndows based OpenStack Hypervisors and does not relate to the ability to run Windows images as guests on OpenStack. Regards James [0] https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2022-November/03104… [1] https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2023-March/032888.h…

5 9

[openstack-ansible] Recommended branch for a production environment?
by Roger Rivera 05 Sep '23

05 Sep '23

Hello, We have deployed Openstack-Ansible in a test environment and we were wondering what the recommended repository branch is to deploy in a production environment that will be integrated with a separate Ceph cluster. 1. We are thinking about pinning to the stable/zed. Is that recommended over the master branch? 2. Are bugs ironed out on both master and stable/zed with the same cadence? 3. Additionally, is Debian 11 a better alternative than Ubuntu 22 for target hosts? We noticed Ubuntu 22.04 support was added recently, whereas Debian 11 has been supported for quite some time now which leads us to believe its stability/integration could be more mature at this point? Any suggestions will be appreciated. Thank you, -- *Roger *

3 7

[Rally]
by Aayushi Gautam 31 Aug '23

31 Aug '23

Hello, I am Aayushi , an intern with Redhat working on ESI ( Elastic secure Infracstructure) group. We were trying to use Rally to test the performance of our codebase. I have created a Plugin and task . And getting an error. The same bug is also asked on the bug page of Rally, but it was not answered. I have attached the code of the plugin and task and the error message. Looking forward to hearing from you.

2 5

[ptls][tc] OpenStack User Survey Updates
by Allison Price 29 Aug '23

29 Aug '23

Hi Everyone, Like Helena mentioned last week, we are closing the 2023 OpenStack User Survey in a few weeks and will then open the 2024 OpenStack User Survey. At this time, we want to offer the project teams and TC the opportunity to update your project specific questions that appear at the end of the survey. As a reminder, for the project-specific questions, these appear if a survey taker selects your project in their deployment and TC questions appear to all survey takers. If you and your team would like to update the question, please let me know by Friday, August 18. I know that this is a holiday time for many, so if any team needs some extra time, just let me know. I am also able to share the existing questions with any team that needs a refresher on what is currently in the survey. In the meantime, please continue to promote openstack.org/usersurvey to anyone (and everyone!) you know who is running OpenStack or planning to in the future. We want to get as much feedback as we possibly can. Cheers, Allison

7 24

TripleO deployment over IPV6
by Kushagr Gupta 25 Aug '23

25 Aug '23

Hi Team, We were trying to perform IPV6-based deployment of TripleO. We are following the link: https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_openstack_platform/16… As per our environment, we set the "ipv6_address_mode" to "dhcpv6-stateful" and tried undercloud deployment. It was successful. But when we try node introspection, openstack is not providing an IP that will be used for PXE booting the system. We have enabled PXE booting on the IPV6 network. On Dell machines, we get the following error: "PXE-E16: No offer received." For your reference, the undercloud file which we used is attached. We also tried to find the communication happening on the br-ctlplane interface when the machine tries to boot over IPV6 PXE boot. I am attaching those tcpdump records as well. We are unable to find the MAC address of our machines. *Questions:* 1. Is it even possible to perform tripleO deployment with IPV6? 2. Do we need to do some extra settings, so that our baremetal machines can be PXE booted? Thanks and Regards

3 9

[puppet] Proposing core team clean up
by Takashi Kajinami 23 Aug '23

23 Aug '23

Hello, I went through the current core reviewers and found out that the current list includes some people no longer working in the OpenStack community. I'd like to propose removing the following persons from the core reviewer team as we haven't seen these people making any activity in the community recently. * Pradeep Kilambi - puppet-aodh, puppet-ceilometer, puppet-gnocchi, puppet-panko * Richard Megginson - puppet-keystone * Denis Egorenko - puppet-murano * Serg Melikyan - puppet-murano * Sergey Kolekonov - puppet-neutron * David Moreau Simard - puppet-openstack-integration * Yu xingchao - all modules Also, I confirmed that Wes Hayutin is no longer working for OpenStack and he agreed to retire from the core reviewer position. Thus I'll remove him as well. I'll be open for any feedback for one week to hear any thoughts/feedback about this removal. I'd like to take this moment to thank all people for their past work. We always welcome them back if they resume their work in this project. Thank you, Takashi KAJINAMI

3 4

[charms] Nominate Martin Kalcok for charms-core
by Frode Nordahl 21 Aug '23

21 Aug '23

Hello all, I would like to nominate Martin Kalcok for charms-core. He has been part of the extended charms teams for some time now, and has provided many contributions to OpenStack, Ceph and OVN charms [0]. He is diligent and thorough in his contributions, and has recently become a full time member of the focused OVN team. 0: https://review.opendev.org/q/owner:martin.kalcok%2540canonical.com -- Frode Nordahl

5 4

[olso.messaging] RabbitMQ and streams
by Arnaud Morin 16 Aug '23

16 Aug '23

Hey all, Is there any chance that someone already worked on integrating RabbitMQ streams (see [1]) to replace fanouts in oslo rabbitmq driver? We are wondering if this would help lowering the rabbit usage, and maybe increase the rabbit stability? Our deployment is relying a lot on fanouts to delivers messages to computes (mostly neutron, e.g. secgroup update / remote cache population), this is leading to a massive number of messages beeing delivered by seconds. Cheers, Arnaud [1] https://www.rabbitmq.com/streams.html

2 2