January 2026 - openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

[neutron] IPv6 DVR for OVN - Seeking feedback on patch review prospects
by Maximilian Stinsky-Damke 04 Feb '26

04 Feb '26

Hello, I'm reaching out about the IPv6 DVR feature for OVN (bug #1998609: https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1998609) and the associated patch (https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron/+/867513) As noted in the bug comments, Roberto Bartzen Acosta maintained this patch across multiple release cycles, but it hasn't received reviews from core maintainers and is currently blocked by merge conflicts. Roberto mentioned that the feature hasn't been getting traction despite the work put in. This feature would enable distributed routing for IPv6 GUA addresses in OVN deployments, similar to how IPv4 FIPs work with DVR today. The spec was approved and merged (https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron-specs/+/867979) indicating community interest. Before I invest time rebasing the patch and resolving merge conflicts, I'd like to understand: 1. Are there technical or architectural concerns that have prevented review? 2. Is there a reason this hasn't been prioritized, or is it a matter of reviewer availability? 3. Would core maintainers be willing to review if the patch is rebased and updated? I'm happy to do the rebase work, but I'd prefer not to spend time on something that won't be merged. Any guidance on the status and viability of this feature would be appreciated. Thanks, Max

2 5

OVN issues
by engineer2024 03 Feb '26

03 Feb '26

HI, I am trying to setup an extport host to act as host for an sriov vm IP. Set it up using ovs-vsctl set Open_vSwitch . external_ids:ovn-cms-options=enable-chassis-as-extport-host But when a vm is created with this sriov port, it is not able to reach the metadata service at 169.254.169.254. Inside the vm vm:~# ip r 10.1.0.0/24 dev ens5 proto kernel scope link src 10.1.0.20 169.254.169.254 via 10.1.0.12 dev ens5 proto dhcp src 10.36.160.60 metric 100 On the node marked as the extport host for this vm's ip, its ovn-controller log shows --------- 2026-01-29T11:52:26.922Z|00069|binding|INFO|Setting lport a7c94e2b-58f1-4a6d-8c73-1d0e6f92b4cf up in Southbound 2026-01-29T11:52:27.849Z|00070|binding|INFO|Releasing lport a7c94e2b-58f1-4a6d-8c73-1d0e6f92b4cf from this chassis (sb_readonly=0) 2026-01-29T11:52:27.851Z|00071|binding|INFO|Setting lport a7c94e2b-58f1-4a6d-8c73-1d0e6f92b4cf down in Southbound 2026-01-29T11:52:28.480Z|00072|binding|INFO|Claiming lport a7c94e2b-58f1-4a6d-8c73-1d0e6f92b4cf for this chassis. 2026-01-29T11:52:28.480Z|00073|binding|INFO|a7c94e2b-58f1-4a6d-8c73-1d0e6f92b4cf: Claiming fa:16:3e:f3:82:f9 10.1.0.20 2026-01-29T11:52:28.482Z|00074|binding|INFO|Setting lport a7c94e2b-58f1-4a6d-8c73-1d0e6f92b4cf up in Southbound 2026-01-29T11:52:29.486Z|00075|binding|INFO|Releasing lport a7c94e2b-58f1-4a6d-8c73-1d0e6f92b4cf from this chassis (sb_readonly=0) 2026-01-29T11:52:29.489Z|00076|binding|INFO|Setting lport a7c94e2b-58f1-4a6d-8c73-1d0e6f92b4cf down in Southbound ------------ It is fluctuating intermittently and not stable. Why is this flapping ? Also the metadata proxy is running fine on the extport host ip netns exec ovnmeta-7d9a4c21-1e6f-4f2b-9a84-3c8e1b7d62f0 telnet 169.254.169.254 80 Trying 169.254.169.254... Connected to 169.254.169.254. # ip netns exec ovnmeta-7d9a4c21-1e6f-4f2b-9a84-3c8e1b7d62f0 ss -ln | grep 80 tcp LISTEN 0 1024 169.254.169.254:80 <http://169.254.169.254/> 0.0.0.0:* # ps -ef | grep ovn-meta root 408634 1 9 11:52 ? 00:02:45 neutron-ovn-metadata-agent (/openstack/venvs/neutron-29.2.3/bin/python3 /openstack/venvs/neutron-29.2.3/bin/neutron-ovn-metadata-agent --config-file /etc/neutron/neutron.conf --config-file /etc/neutron/plugins/ml2/ml2_conf.ini --config-file /etc/neutron/neutron_ovn_metadata_agent.ini) root 408673 1 0 11:52 ? 00:00:00 haproxy -f /var/lib/neutron/ovn-metadata-proxy/7d9a4c21-1e6f-4f2b-9a84-3c8e1b7d62f0.conf root 421770 388277 0 12:21 pts/12 00:00:00 grep --color=auto ovn-meta

2 1

Digital Sovereignty WG Kickoff Summary + Recording + Next Steps
by Kendall Nelson 02 Feb '26

02 Feb '26

Hello Everyone! Thank you to those that were able to attend our first meeting of the Digital Sovereignty Working Group! We had excellent representation from many different countries and organizations. Lots of good perspective and ideas were shared and I am eager to get started! As promised, here is the recording for those that were not able to attend: https://zoom.us/rec/share/QLyhngha_pgXEc2736oPEdDGWz_UI8IZLbHbJGyDWLv7nt4es… And here is the etherpad where we took notes, but will also continue to use going forward for meeting agendas and general working group coordination: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/Digital-Sovereignty-WG If you watch the recording, please feel free to add your name to the attendees list in the etherpad, just make an additional note that you watched the recording. Everyone is encouraged to add to the notes and content in the etherpad whether they attended the meeting live or watched the recording. The goal is to capture as much participation as possible. Digital sovereignty is a very important topic with an ever developing list of accompanying legislation and we need everyone's perspective! Now, while there wasn't much in the way of immediate todo's, the one request that I have is that folks fill out this poll so that we can select a meeting time <https://beta.framadate.org/polls/5f355daf8e4329e1cd52> for the next one (during the first week of February). Responses to this poll are allowed until January 28th. -Kendall

1 2

[keystone][openstack-helm][kolla] Is it safe to run the Keystone wsgi application in multiple threads?
by Vladimir Kozhukalov 31 Jan '26

31 Jan '26

Hi Keystone team, I am writing to ask someone from the Keystone team to give their opinion regarding whether it is safe to run the Keystone wsgi app in multiple threads in the same process. I see [1] Kolla team allows users to configure the number of processes but not the number of threads. We in Openstack-Helm have a similar review request [2] and we had a small discussion about this. I would really appreciate it if someone from the Keystone team can give their opinion on [2]. Thanks. [1] https://opendev.org/openstack/kolla-ansible/src/branch/master/ansible/roles… [2] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-helm/+/971751 -- Best regards, Kozhukalov Vladimir

2 1

[manila] 2026.1 Gazpacho mid cycle: Feb 3rd and 5th
by Carlos Silva 31 Jan '26

31 Jan '26

Hello, everyone! The Manila team's mid cycle is right around the corner. As in the mid cycles we have hosted in the past, we will focus on understanding where we are with our plans for 2026.1 Gazpacho, as well as host collaborative review sessions for the features being introduced, helping speed up the review process. All sessions will be recorded and shared in the OpenStack Manila YouTube channel [2]. We will meet from 15:00 to 16:30 UTC on the 3rd and 5th of February in this meetpad bridge [3]. We are using an etherpad to gather topics [1], so in case you would like to add something to discuss with the manila community, please update the etherpad. The .ics file contains all meeting details [4] and can be imported to your calendar tool of preference. [1] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/manila-gazpacho-mid-cycle [2] https://www.youtube.com/@openstackmanila [3] https://meetpad.opendev.org/p/manila-gazpacho-mid-cycle [4] https://gist.github.com/silvacarloss/0ba9a53c7b9b3d98690f1b6495baa502 Looking forward to it! Regards, carloss

1 0

[cinder] 2026.1 Midcycle reminder
by Jon Bernard 31 Jan '26

31 Jan '26

Hello all, this is a reminder that our midcycle/review meeting will take place on Wednesday February 11th from 1400 to 1600 UTC. The etherpad we'll be using is here [1], please add any topics and review information that you would like to cover. [1]: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cinder-gazpacho-midcycles -- Jon

1 0

[tc][cyborg] Proposal for Cyborg Project Revitalization and Maintenance
by Sean Mooney 31 Jan '26

31 Jan '26

Hi everyone, I'm not really sure how to start this conversation, so I'm just going to jump right to the point. I am writing to the Cyborg community and the Technical Committee to discuss the current state of the project and share my intent to help ramp up maintenance efforts for this cycle and beyond. I recently discussed this briefly on the #openstack-tc channel, but I wanted to bring it to the public list for broader visibility. Now that the new year has started, I am reaching out to express my intent to spend time contributing to the health and maintainability of Cyborg over the next few cycles. If I'm being entirely honest, it does not feel like it has been 18 months since I started down the same path with Watcher, but I have been asked to try and restart Cyborg development in a similar way as we did with Watcher. Recently, I have been submitting patches and performing initial code reviews, but it is clear that review latency and accumulated technical debt have become significant bottlenecks. To help unblock the project and prepare for future development, I am volunteering to lead a focused cleanup effort. My primary goals for this cycle are: 1. Addressing neglected technical debt and stale patches: I have already identified several critical areas including oslo.db and oslo.service compatibility, microversion-parse naming, and the long-overdue eventlet removal. I have also identified a backlog of bot-proposed patches for release notes and .gitreview that need manual intervention. 2. Improving CI/CD stability and alignment: While we have made progress moving failing jobs from Jammy to Noble and adding Python 3.13 support, significant debt remains. For example, the cyborg-tempest-plugin lacks stable branch jobs post-2024.2 while still carrying EOL branch definitions. We also lack grenade/SLURP upgrade testing which is vital for project health. 3. Managing release-related work and project metadata: Cyborg needs active management for release note preludes, marketing highlights, and RC/GA tagging. Furthermore, our Launchpad project requires cleanup to ensure bugs and features are tracked against the correct series, and team ownership needs to be aligned with current OpenStack standards. Note: I have checked PyPI (https://pypi.org/project/openstack-cyborg/) and it is correctly owned by openstackci from what I can tell. We are close to the end of the 2026.1 cycle, so my immediate priority is fixing the critical gaps to ensure Cyborg's inclusion in the 2026.1 release, followed by a longer-term plan for maintenance in 2026.2 and new feature development. To execute this, I am requesting that the core team consider adding me to the cyborg-core group. I am also volunteering as Release and TACT-SIG liaison for the remainder of this cycle. For 2026.2, I propose adopting the Distributed Project Leadership (DPL) model to better distribute these responsibilities. One or two others who have been helping me revive Watcher over the last year will be joining me in this effort over the coming weeks. We hope to split the release, TACT, and security roles between us to ensure consistent coverage unless we get other volunteers :) Our overall goal is to restart the Nova-Cyborg integration work to improve the accelerator management UX (attach/detach, move operations, etc.). To reach that point, we must first pay down technical debt and rebuild an active core review team. I have prepared a high-level maintenance roadmap and task list here: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cyborg-maintance-2026.2 which I intend to use to track this work. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. The first step should probably to discuss this at the next tc meeting and to follow up with the existing core team for comment. If there are no objections, I will coordinate with the TC and Infra team regarding the necessary permission updates. Regards, Sean

3 4

[neutron] Drivers meeting canceled Friday, January 30th
by Brian Haley 30 Jan '26

30 Jan '26

Hello Neutrinos: I am going to cancel Friday's Drivers meeting as there are no topics. Just a reminder that our open spec list at [0]. Have a nice weekend! -Brian [0] https://review.opendev.org/q/status:open+project:openstack/neutron-specs

1 0

RabbitMQ version for OpenStack Epoxy
by Francesco Di Nucci 29 Jan '26

29 Jan '26

Hi all, I'm upgrading from OpenStack Caracal to Epoxy on EL, using RDO packages. I see that CentOS Stream Messaging SIG still packages RabbitMQ 3.8, that is EOL. Should I still use it or switch to a more recent release, like 3.13 or pass to 4.x series? Has anyone tried it? Thanks in advance -- Francesco Di Nucci System Administrator Compute & Networking Service, INFN Naples Email: francesco.dinucci(a)na.infn.it

5 8

[ironic] Tuesday morning (PST) recurring review jam!
by Jay Faulkner 29 Jan '26

29 Jan '26

Hey all, The GR-OSS OpenStack team is going to be hosting a weekly Ironic review jam for our internal contributors from 10a-11a (PST) on Tuesdays for the foreseeable future. We'll be reviewing anything and everything in Ironic or Ironic-adjacent repos (not just GR changes). If you want an invitation, I'm happy to add anyone, just ask! Thanks, Jay Faulkner

1 0