- openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

[neutron] bug deputy report for 2020-02-24 week
by Takashi Yamamoto 01 Mar '20

01 Mar '20

2020-02-24 week Someone familiar with these topics need to investigate DHCP agent: https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1864711 DHCP port rescheduling causes ports to grow, internal DNS to be broken WSGI: https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1864418 has wrong with use apache to start neutron api in docker container L3 agent: https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1864963 loosing connectivity to instance with FloatingIP randomly API server performance: https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1865223 [scale issue] regression for security group list between Newton and Rocky+ RFE https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1864841 Neutron -> Designate integration does not consider the dns pool for zone Medium https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1864822 Openvswitch Agent - Connexion openvswitch DB Broken Low https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1864374 ml2 ovs does not flush iptables switching to FW ovs OVN-specific stuff High https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1864620 [OVN] neutron_tempest_plugin.scenario.test_security_groups.NetworkSecGroupTest.test_multiple_ports_portrange_remote often fails Medium https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1864833 [OVN] Functional tests start with OVSDB binary 2.9 instead 2.12 https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1864639 [OVN] UpdateLRouterPortCommand and AddLRouterPortCommand needs to specify network Wishlist https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1864640 [Ussuri] Neutron API writes to the Southbound DB

1 0

Retiring openstack/faafo repository
by Andreas Jaeger 01 Mar '20

01 Mar '20

This repo was part of the first-app document that was retired last year as part of the api-site retirement work. Thus, I'm retiring the openstack/faafo repository now. Patches are pushed with topic:retire-faafo, starting at https://review.opendev.org/710652 Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger aj(a)suse.com Twitter: jaegerandi SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D 90409 Nürnberg (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) GF: Felix Imendörffer GPG fingerprint = EF18 1673 38C4 A372 86B1 E699 5294 24A3 FF91 2ACB

1 0

[all] Moving towards OpenDev
by Mohammed Naser 29 Feb '20

29 Feb '20

Hi everyone, The OpenStack infrastructure team has helped build an extremely powerful set of tools which we use on a daily basis in order to build OpenStack. You may have noticed that Open Infrastructure projects (such as Zuul, StarlingX, Airship, etc) have leveraged these tools as well as they found them to be extremely powerful and useful to build software by leveraging our four opens. As you might have noticed, there has been many references to OpenDev and it's time that we split off the infrastructure team to it's own separate community with governance and the OpenStack infrastructure team will continue to help work with the OpenDev team in order to keep our lights running (and most likely, those two teams will be the same at the start, but the idea is hoping that one or both grow separately). I'd like to invite our community to please look at the following two patches and leave your comments. Regardless how you feel about this, we'd really appreciate if you can leave a review (-1 or +1) just to show some sort of acknowledgment and help signal that the community is aware of this upcoming change. I'm certainly very excited about it. :) https://review.opendev.org/#/c/710020/ https://review.opendev.org/#/c/703488/ Thanks everyone! Regards, Mohammed

3 3

[tripleo] openstack-train mirror for CentOS aarch64
by Lenny Verkhovsky 28 Feb '20

28 Feb '20

Hi, I see that there is no openstack-train repo for aarch64 for CentOS[1] This repo is also used by kolla project. Who maintains it and if there are any plans for adding train repo? [1] http://mirror.centos.org/altarch/7/cloud/aarch64/ Best Regards Lenny Verkhovsky Mellanox Technologies<http://www.mellanox.com/> office:+972 74 712 92 44 irc:lennyb

2 1

[security] Security SIG Newsletter - Feb 2020
by Gage Hugo 28 Feb '20

28 Feb '20

#Month Feb 2020 - Security SIG Meeting Info: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/#Security_SIG_meeting - Weekly on Thursday at 1500 UTC in #openstack-meeting - Agenda: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/security-agenda - https://security.openstack.org/ - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Security-SIG #Updates - The Security SIG has recently updated the reporting guidelines for private security bugs to now have a max timeframe of 90 days for embargos (excluding unusual circumstances). We have begun marking all existing private bugs to go public after 90 days from the date that it was updated. - - The Security SIG has reached out about obtaining a room/timeslot for the Vancouver PTG. We will be requesting a spot, likely just a shorter timeslot due to a small amount of given interest. However we should be able to have time to discuss any topics brought forward. The first OSSA of the year was released this month, for more details check out the link below. #VMT Reports - A full list of publicly marked security issues can be found here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ossa/ - OSSA-2020-001 was released: https://security.openstack.org/ossa/OSSA-2020-001.html

1 0

[kuryr] macvlan driver looking for an owner
by Roman Dobosz 28 Feb '20

28 Feb '20

Hi, Recently we migrated most of the drivers and handler to OpenStackSDK, instead of neutron-client[1], and have a plan to drop neutron-client usage. One of the drivers - MACVLAN based interfaces for nested containers - wasn't migrated due to lack of confidence backed up with sufficient tempest tests. Therefore we are looking for a maintainer, who will take care about both - migration to the openstacksdk (which I can help with) and to provide appropriate environment and tests. In case there is no interest on continuing support for this driver we will deprecate it and remove from the source tree possibly in this release. [1] https://review.opendev.org/#/q/topic:bp/switch-to-openstacksdk -- Cheers, Roman Dobosz gryf@freenode

2 2

[release] Release countdown for week R-10, March 2-6
by Sean McGinnis 28 Feb '20

28 Feb '20

General Information ------------------- The following cycle-with-intermediary deliverables have not done any intermediary release yet during this cycle. The cycle-with-rc release model is more suited for deliverables that plan to be released only once per cycle. As a result, we have proposed[1] to change the release model for the following deliverables: freezer karbor networking-baremetal neutron-fwaas-dashboard, neutron-vpnaas-dashboard senlin-dashboard tacker-horizon [1] https://review.opendev.org/#/q/topic:ussuri-cwi PTLs and release liaisons for each of those deliverables can either +1 the release model change, or propose an intermediary release for that deliverable. In absence of answer by the end of R-10 week we'll consider that the switch to cycle-with-rc is preferable. We are now past the published date for the stable/rocky branch to enter the Extended Maintenance phase: https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html#maintena… A set of patches have been proposed for all cycle-based deliverables in rocky to tag the last release as "rocky-em". After this point, no more official releases will be done. Please acknowledge any patches for your team if you have not already done so, or let us know if there are some last minute patches on their way to merging that we should hold for. https://review.opendev.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/releases+branc… Any patches not acknowledged by March 5 will be assumed to be OK and we will process any remaining patches. We also published a proposed release schedule for the upcoming Victoria cycle. Please check out the separate thread: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2020-February/012735… Upcoming Deadlines & Dates -------------------------- Non-client library freeze: April 2 (R-6 week) Client library freeze: April 9 (R-5 week) Ussuri-3 milestone: April 9 (R-5 week) OpenDev+PTG Vancouver: June 8-11

1 0

[RDO][tripleo][kolla][puppet] Moving CentOS8 master dependencies repo in RDO
by Alfredo Moralejo Alonso 28 Feb '20

28 Feb '20

Hi, In the next hours we are moving RDO to a new Dependencies repo for CentOS8 master based on new CBS (CentOS Build System) builds. We have tested this new repo for all the projects that we know use it (kolla, packstack, puppet-openstck-integration and tripleo) and we have a plan to make the transition non-disrupting so we expect not to affect gates on any project by modifying [1] in several steps. Let us know if you notice abnormal behavior so that we can fix any issue that may arise or even revert the change if needed. Best regards, Alfredo [1] https://trunk.rdoproject.org/centos8-master/delorean-deps.repo

2 1

[keystone] [keystonemiddleware] [neutron] [keystone_authtoken] auth_url not available via oslo_config
by Justin Cattle 28 Feb '20

28 Feb '20

Hi, I'm reaching out for help with a strange issue I've found. Running openstack queens, on ubuntu xenial. We have a bunch of different sites with the same set-up, recently upgraded from mitaka to queens. However, on this one site, after the upgrade, we cannot start neutron-server. The reason is, that the ml2 plugin throws an error because it can't find auth_url from the keystone_authtoken section of neutron.conf. However, it is there in the file. The ml2 plugin is calico, it fails with this error: 2020-02-20 20:14:22.495 2964911 ERROR networking_calico.plugins.ml2.drivers.calico.mech_calico [-] Exception in function %s: TypeError: expected string or buffer 2020-02-20 20:14:22.495 2964911 ERROR networking_calico.plugins.ml2.drivers.calico.mech_calico Traceback (most recent call last): 2020-02-20 20:14:22.495 2964911 ERROR networking_calico.plugins.ml2.drivers.calico.mech_calico File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/networking_calico/logutils.py", line 21, in wrapped 2020-02-20 20:14:22.495 2964911 ERROR networking_calico.plugins.ml2.drivers.calico.mech_calico return fn(*args, **kwargs) 2020-02-20 20:14:22.495 2964911 ERROR networking_calico.plugins.ml2.drivers.calico.mech_calico File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/networking_calico/plugins/ml2/drivers/calico/mech_calico.py", line 347, in _post_fork_init 2020-02-20 20:14:22.495 2964911 ERROR networking_calico.plugins.ml2.drivers.calico.mech_calico auth_url=re.sub(r'/v3/?$', '', auth_url) + 2020-02-20 20:14:22.495 2964911 ERROR networking_calico.plugins.ml2.drivers.calico.mech_calico File "/usr/lib/python2.7/re.py", line 155, in sub 2020-02-20 20:14:22.495 2964911 ERROR networking_calico.plugins.ml2.drivers.calico.mech_calico return _compile(pattern, flags).sub(repl, string, count) 2020-02-20 20:14:22.495 2964911 ERROR networking_calico.plugins.ml2.drivers.calico.mech_calico TypeError: expected string or buffer When you look at the code, this is because neither auth_url or is found in cfg.CONF.keystone_authtoken. The config defintely exists. I have copied the neutron.conf config from a working site, same error. I have copied the entire /etc/neutron directory from a working site, same error. I have check with strace, and /etc/neutron/neutron.conf is the only neutron.conf being parsed. Here is the keystone_authtoken part of the config: [keystone_authtoken] auth_uri=https://api-srv-cloud.host.domain:5000 region_name=openstack memcached_servers=1.2.3.4:11211 auth_type=password auth_url=https://api-srv-cloud.host.domain:5000 username=neutron password=xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx user_domain_name=Default project_name=services project_domain_name=Default I'm struggling to understand how the auth_url config is really registered in via oslo_config. I found an excellent exchagne on the ML here: https://openstack.nimeyo.com/115150/openstack-keystone-devstack-confusion-a… This seems to indicate auth_url is only registered if a particular auth plugin requires it. But I can't find the plugin code that does it, so I'm not sure how/where to debug it properly. If anyone has any ideas, I would really appreciate some input or pointers. Thanks! Cheers, Just -- Notice: This email is confidential and may contain copyright material of members of the Ocado Group. Opinions and views expressed in this message may not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of the members of the Ocado Group. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately and delete all copies of this message. Please note that it is your responsibility to scan this message for viruses. References to the "Ocado Group" are to Ocado Group plc (registered in England and Wales with number 7098618) and its subsidiary undertakings (as that expression is defined in the Companies Act 2006) from time to time. The registered office of Ocado Group plc is Buildings One & Two, Trident Place, Mosquito Way, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9UL.

5 7

[keystone] Keystone Team Update - Week of 24 February 2020
by Vishakha Agarwal 28 Feb '20

28 Feb '20

# Keystone Team Update - Week of 24 February 2020 ## News ### User Support and Bug Duty Every week the duty is being rotated between the members. The person-in-charge for bug duty for current and upcoming week can be seen on the etherpad [2] [2] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/keystone-l1-duty ## Open Specs Ussuri specs: https://bit.ly/2XDdpkU Ongoing specs: https://bit.ly/2OyDLTh ## Recently Merged Changes Search query: https://bit.ly/2pquOwT We merged 8 changes this week. ## Changes that need Attention Search query: https://bit.ly/2tymTje There are 22 changes that are passing CI, not in merge conflict, have no negative reviews and aren't proposed by bots. ### Priority Reviews * Ussuri Roadmap Stories - Groups in keystone SAML assertion https://tree.taiga.io/project/keystone-ussuri-roadmap/us/33 https://review.opendev.org/#/c/588211/ Add openstack_groups to assertion - Add support for modifying resource options to CLI tool https://tree.taiga.io/project/keystone-ussuri-roadmap/us/53 https://review.opendev.org/#/c/697444/ Adding options to user cli ## Milestone Outlook https://releases.openstack.org/ussuri/schedule.html Feature proposal freeze happens in two weeks. Feature freeze follows four weeks after that. ## Help with this newsletter Help contribute to this newsletter by editing the etherpad: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/keystone-team-newsletter ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

WSREP: referenced FK check fail after switching to Galera
by Albert Braden 28 Feb '20

28 Feb '20

I switched our dev and qa clusters to Galera, and they seem to work fine, but I see this error in the logs: Feb 27 11:24:08 us01odc-dev1-ctrl1 mysqld[361982]: 2020-02-27 11:24:08 484069 [ERROR] InnoDB: WSREP: referenced FK check fail: Lock wait index `PRIMARY` table `neutron`.`provisioningblocks` I googled around and people say that it is a harmless error, but it seems to be time-correlated with creation of VMs that aren't pingable. https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-18562 Is this a harmless error? Do I need to look elsewhere for the reason why some VMs fail to return pings?

2 1

Train release notes: deprecated option show_multiple_locations missing?
by Eugen Block 28 Feb '20

28 Feb '20

Hi, I'm currently evaluating our new OpenStack environment (Train), testing the usual scenarios. In the past I've had issues with nova and rbd backend, when the compute nodes used to download rbd images just to re-import them back to the ceph cluster instead of simply cloning an image. The cause was the show_multiple_locations option that was marked deprecated since Pike but in fact it's still necessary. The release notes of Pike, Queens, Rocky and Stein all mention that the workaround is still required: > The show_multiple_locations configuration option remains deprecated > in this release, but it has not been removed. > (It had been > scheduled for removal in the Pike release.) Please keep a watch on > the Glance release notes and the > glance-specs repository to stay > informed about developments on this issue. The Train release notes don't mention this option anymore but my tests show that it's still required to avoid unnecessary rbd exports/imports. Maybe the release notes for Train should be updated to cover this issue. In case I missed any further information that already addresses this I apologize. Best regards, Eugen

2 4

[UX] Contributing to OpenStack's User Interface
by Trang Le 27 Feb '20

27 Feb '20

Dear OpenStack Discussion Team, I am Trang Le, a student at UC Berkeley Extension interested in contributing to OpenStack’s UX/UI. I am currently pursuing a Professional Diploma in UX/UI and would love to contribute to an open-source project and work with experienced engineers. Before, I have also worked at Fujitsu Vietnam in the open-source team, where I learned a lot about OpenStack through training. Let me know if my message could be of interest to you, and I would be happy to discuss further. All the best, Trang Trang Le UC Berkeley Extension - Professional Diploma - UX/UI Design Smith College - Bachelors of Arts - Mathematics and Statistics Phone: +1 (650) 300 9007 Github: https://github.com/trangreyle

5 7

[tripleo]
by Wesley Hayutin 27 Feb '20

27 Feb '20

Greetings, Pending a zuul restart I suggest not rechecking or workflowing +2 patches atm. Probably should lay off submitting patches as well [1]. You can watch the dashboard [2] or follow twitter [3] for the restart notice if you want to. Thanks [1] http://zuul.openstack.org/builds?result=RETRY_LIMIT [2] http://dashboard-ci.tripleo.org/d/cockpit/cockpit?orgId=1&fullscreen&panelI… [3] https://twitter.com/openstackinfra

2 2

[cinder] ussuri virtual mid-cycle 16 march at 12:00 UTC
by Brian Rosmaita 27 Feb '20

27 Feb '20

The poll results are in. As with session one, there was only one time when everyone can meet (apologies to the "if need be" people, thank you for being flexible). Session Two of the Cinder Ussuri virtual mid-cycle will be held: DATE: Monday, 16 March 2020 TIME: 1200-1400 UTC LOCATION: https://bluejeans.com/3228528973 The meeting will be recorded. Please add topics to the planning etherpad: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/cinder-ussuri-mid-cycle-planning cheers, brian

1 0

[all][PTL][tc] U Community Goal: Project PTL & Contrib Docs Update #3
by Kendall Nelson 27 Feb '20

27 Feb '20

Hello! There is some debate about where the content of the actual docs should live. This grew out of the discussion about how to setup the includes so that the correct info shows up where we want it. 'Correct' in that last sentence being where the debate is. There are two main schools of thought: 1. All the content of the docs should live in the top level CONTRIBUTING.rst and the sphinx glue should live in doc/source/contributor/contributing.rst. A patch has already been merged for this approach[1]. There is also a patch to update the goal to match[2]. This approach keeps all the info in one place so that if things change in the future, its easier to keep things straight. All the content is also more easily discoverable when looking at a repo in GitHub (or similar) or checking out the code because it is at the top most level of the repo and not hidden in the docs sub directory. 2. The new patch[3] says that the content should live in /doc/source/contributor/contributing.rst and a skeleton with only the most important version should live in the top level CONTRIBUTING.rst. This approach argues that people don't want to read a wall of text when viewing the code on GitHub (or similar) or checking it out and looking at the top level CONTRIBUTING.rst and as such only the important details should be kept in that file. These important details being that we don't accept patches in github and where to report bugs (both of which are included in the larger format of the content). So what do people think? Which approach do they prefer? I am anxious to get this settled ASAP so that projects have time to complete the goal in time. Previous updates if you missed them[4][5]. Please feel free to add other ideas or make corrections to my summaries of the approaches if I missed things :) -Kendall (diablo_rojo) [1] Merged Template Patch (school of thought 1): https://review.opendev.org/#/c/708511/ [2] Goal Update Patch: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/707736/ [3] Current Template Patch (school of thought 2): https://review.opendev.org/#/c/708672/ [4] Update #1: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2020-February/012364… [5] Update #2: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2020-February/012570…

6 7

[oslo][cache] oslo.cache hardening
by Moises Guimaraes de Medeiros 27 Feb '20

27 Feb '20

Hi all, Whenever deploying a service inside a network, basic security concerns come to mind: Is the network trusted? Can we send data in plaintext? Is the service available only to those intended to use it? Can the service itself or others have access to the data? That is no exception for caching servers and a while ago, me and Lance Bragstad started a discussion about this topic. *Possible solutions* *Protecting data in transit using TLS* Requires a backend with TLS support. Since version 1.5.13, Memcached supports authentication and encryption via TLS. This feature requires: OpenSSL 1.1.0 or later; A Memcached client with TLS support; A Memcached server built using ./configure --enable-tls. Encrypting the traffic protects the data in transit from reading and tampering. The complexity impact is that each Memcached server will need a valid certificate. The performance impact is the TLS overhead itself. Performing client authentication protects the server from unauthorized read and write operations. The complexity impact is that each Memcached client will need a valid certificate. The performance impact is bigger due to the extra steps to authenticate both sides. This approach doesn't protect the data held in memory by Memcached in any other way. *Authentication using SASL* Requires a backend with SASL support. Since version 1.4.3, Memcached supports authentication via SASL. This feature requires: A Memcached client with SASL support; A Memcached server built using ./configure --enable-sasl. This approach protects the server from unauthorized read and write operations. The complexity and performance impact is according to SASL usage. This approach doesn't protect the data in transit or held in memory by Memcached in any other way. *Encrypting data before storing* Requires *NO* extra features in the backend. This approach consists of encrypting the data before sending it to the caching servers. The complexity impact is dealing with key sharing for the encryption/decryption process. The performance impact depends on the algorithms used for encryption. This approach protects the data both in transit and held in memory by caching servers, but the key sharing is more prone to setup errors than the TLS or the SASL approach. --- After considering the possible solutions, we decided to tackle the TLS path first. We did an initial analysis of oslo.cache backends that use Memcached together with Hervé Beraud here: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/oslo-cache-tls-support-worksheet Since python-binary-memcached already has SASL support, we thought it to be a good first candidate to implement TLS support and last month I had it merged here: https://github.com/jaysonsantos/python-binary-memcached/pull/211 We are now looking for more people interested in the discussion and help to push changes forward. -- Moisés Guimarães Software Engineer Red Hat

1 0

[neutron] Shared tenant network allow duplicate IP's?
by Adam Peacock 27 Feb '20

27 Feb '20

Hey folks, So I caught wind from a friend/colleague that allowing duplicate IP's in each tenant was now only achievable by creating a separate tenant network+subnet and assigning them separately to each individual tenant. This doesn't seem right to me and it doesn't scale. *Looking for this:* - tenant-network-id = abc (shared) - tenant1 - vm1: 10.0.0.10 - tenant2 - vm1: 10.0.0.10 Am I missing something and this setup is no longer supported? I hope I'm wrong but I can't find documentation that speaks to this specifically so would appreciate a link if anyone has it handy. Thanks! //adam *Adam Peacock* Principal Architect Office: +1-916-794-5706

4 4

[ptl][release][stable][EM] Extended Maintenance - Rocky
by Elõd Illés 27 Feb '20

27 Feb '20

Hi, In less than one month Rocky is planned to enter into Extended Maintenance phase [1] (estimated date: 2020-02-24). I have generated the list of *open* and *unreleased* changes in *stable/rocky* for the follows-policy tagged repositories [2]. These lists could help the teams, who are planning to do a final release on Rocky before moving stable/rocky branches to Extended Maintenance. Feel free to edit them! * At the transition date the Release Team will tag the latest (Rocky) releases of repositories with *rocky-em* tag. * After the transition stable/rocky will be still open for bugfixes, but there won't be any official releases. NOTE: teams, please focus on wrapping up your libraries first if there is any concern about changes, in order to avoid any broken releases! Thanks, Előd [1] https://releases.openstack.org/ [2] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/rocky-final-release-before-em

4 5

[ops] nova wsgi config
by Arnaud Morin 27 Feb '20

27 Feb '20

Hey all, I am trying to configure apache as a WSGI. Is there any other documentation than this: https://docs.openstack.org/nova/stein/user/wsgi.html Is there any recommendations? Thanks in advance! -- Arnaud Morin

4 7

Cinder / Nova - Select cinder backend based on nova availability zone?
by Tony Pearce 27 Feb '20

27 Feb '20

Apologies in advance if this seems trivial but I am looking for some direction on this and I may have found a bug while testing also. Some background - I have 2 physical hosts which I am testing with (host1, host2) and I have 2 separate cinder backends (backend1, backend2). Backend1 can only be utilised by host1. Same for backend2 - it can only be utilised by host2. So they are paired together like: host1:backend1 host2:backend2 So I wanted to select a Cinder storage back-end based on nova availability zone and to do this when creating an instance through horizon (not creating a volume directly). Also I wanted to avoid the use of metadata input on each instance create or by using metadata from images (such as cinder_img_volume_type) [2] . Because I can foresee a necessity to then have a number of images which reference each AZ or backend individually. - Is it possible to select a backend based on nova AZ? If so, could anyone share any resources to me that could help me understand how to achieve it? Because I failed at achieving the above, I then decided to use one way which had worked for me in the past, which was to use the image metadata "cinder_img_volume_type". However I find that this is not working. The “default” volume type is selected (if cinder.conf has it) or if no default, then `__DEFAULT__` is being selected. The link at [2] states that first, a volume type is used based on the volume type selected and if not chosen/set then the 2nd method is "cinder_img_volume_type" from the image metadata and then the 3rd and final is the default from cinder.conf. I have tested with fresh deployment using Kayobe as well as RDO’s packstack. Openstack version is *Train* Steps to reproduce: 1. Install packstack 2. Update cinder.conf with enabled_backends and the [backend] 3. Add the volume type to reference the backend (for reference, I call this volume type `number-1`) 4. Upload an image and add metadata `cinder_img_volume_type` and the name as mentioned in step 3: number-1 5. Try and create an instance using horizon. Source = image and create new volume 6. Result = volume type / backend as chosen in the image metadata is not used and instance goes into error status. After fresh-deploying the RDO Packstack, I enabled debug logs and tested again. In the cinder-api.log I see “"volume_type": null,” and then the next debug log immediately after logged as “Create volume request body:” has “volume_type': None”. I was searching for a list of the supported image metadata, in case it had changed but the pages seem empty one rocky/stein/train [3] or not yet updated. Selecting backend based on nova AZ:: I was searching how to achieve this and I came across this video on the subject of AZs [1]. Although it seems only in the context of creating volumes (not with creating instances with volume from an image, for example). I have tried creating a host aggregate in nova, with AZ name `host1az`. I've also created a backend in Cinder (cinder.conf) with `backend_availability_zone = host1az`. But this does not appear to achieve the desired result, either and the cinder api logs are showing “"availability_zone": null” during the volume create part of the launch instance from Horizon. I also tried setting RESKEY [3] in the volume type, but again similar situation seen; although I dont think this option is the correct context for what I am attempting. Could anyone please nudge me in the right direction on this? Any pointers appreciated at this point. Thanks in advance. References: [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5332_Ew9JA [2] https://docs.openstack.org/cinder/latest/cli/cli-manage-volumes.html [3] https://docs.openstack.org/cinder/train/contributor/api/cinder.api.schemas.… [4] https://docs.openstack.org/cinder/rocky/admin/blockstorage-availability-zon… Regards, Tony Pearce

2 4

Networking-vpp 20.01 for VPP 20.01 is now available
by Naveen Joy (najoy) 26 Feb '20

26 Feb '20

Hello All, We'd like to invite you to try out Networking-vpp 20.01. As many of you may already know, VPP is a fast user space forwarder based on the DPDK toolkit. VPP uses vector packet processing algorithms to minimize the CPU time spent on each packet to maximize throughput. Networking-vpp is a ML2 mechanism driver that controls VPP on your control and compute hosts to provide fast L2 forwarding under Neutron. This latest version of Networking-vpp is updated to work with VPP 20.01. In this release, we've made the below changes: - We've dropped support for Python 2.7 and updated the code to work with Python 3.6 or later. - We've updated the code to be compatible with VPP 20.01 API changes. - We've added VPP API versioning support using 2 data files. They are API whitelist file and API CRC manifest file. At startup, the vpp-agent will check to see if the API signature is compatible with the installed VPP. Also, at runtime, only the whitelisted API calls will be allowed. - We've fixed an issue with the eventlet that caused problems when binding tap interfaces into Linux bridge - We've been doing the usual round of bug fixes, clean-ups and updates. The code will work with VPP 20.01 and the OpenStack Stein release. The README [1] explains how you can try out VPP with Networking-vpp using devstack: the devstack plugin will deploy the mechanism driver and VPP and should give you a working system with a minimum of hassle. We will be continuing our development for VPP's 20.05 release. We welcome anyone who would like to come help us. -- Jerome, Ian & Naveen [1] https://opendev.org/x/networking-vpp/src/branch/master/README.rst

1 0

[nova][neutron] nova scheduling support for routed networks
by Balázs Gibizer 26 Feb '20

26 Feb '20

Hi, There are multiple efforts to add scheduler support to the neutron routed network feature. Matt's effort to have it as a scheduler pre-filter [1] Adam's (rm_work) effort to have this as a a new scheduler hint and a new scheduler filter [2] We had a good discussion on #openstack-nova [3] about the possible way forward with Sean and Adam. Here is a summary and my proposed way forward. Currently booting a server in a routed network setup works iff the neutron port is pre-created with ip_allocation=deferred before the server create. Nova then schedule the server without consider anything about the possible multiple network segments of the port. Neutron will do the segment assignment when the port is bond to the compute host. The problem is that once a port bound to a segment it cannot be bound to another segment as that would change the IP of the port. So if a server is migrated nova should select a destination host where the _same segment_ is available. Therefore we need a way to influence the scheduling based on the assigned segment id of the port. Both [1] and [2] does that based on the fact that neutron creates nova host aggregates for each network segment and those aggregates are mirrored to placement as placement aggregates. For me the pre-filter approach[1] seems better as * it avoids introducing a new scheduler hint * it is not affected by the allocation candidate limit configuration that effect scheduler filters * it allows us to iterate towards an approach where neutron provides the required aggregates of each port via the ports' resource_request attribute The downside of the pre-filter approach is that right now it needs to query the segments for each network / port the server has before the each scheduling. I think we limit such performance impact by making this pre-filter turned off by default via configuration. So a deployment without routed networks does not need to pay this cost. Later this cost can be nullified by extending neutron to specify the needed aggregates in the port's resource_request. I'm now planning to take [1] over from Matt and finish it up by adding functional test and documentation to it. I would also like to raise attention to the tempest patch that adds basic CI coverage for the currently working server create scenario [4]. Cheers, gibi [1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/656885 [2] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/709280 [3] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-nova/%23openstack-nova.… [4] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/665155

2 1

Restarting neutron-l3-agent service
by Grant Morley 26 Feb '20

26 Feb '20

Hi all, We are currently seeing an issue where neutron isn't setting up ports correctly on routers. We think we have narrowed it down to the "neutron-l3-agent" on the neutron nodes that is causing the issue. We are wanting to restart the service but was wondering if doing so it would cause any issues with currently running instances? We have 2 neutron nodes in HA mode ( one active and one standby ). Currently the issue is only affecting newly built instances, so we don't want to restart the service in hours if it is going to cause issues with instances that are currently unaffected. We are running on OpenStack Queens and have built the platform using OSA. Many thanks for any help. Regards,

2 1

[all][tc][uc] Uniting the TC and the UC
by Thierry Carrez 26 Feb '20

26 Feb '20

Hi all, When our current project governance was established in 2012, we defined two separate bodies. The Technical Committee represented developers / code contributors to the open source project(s), while the User Committee represented the operators running the resulting software, as well as users of the APIs. That setup served us well in those early days. The focus on the upstream side was strongly around *development* of code, we did not have that many users, and even less users directly involved in upstream development. A separate User Committee resulted in the formation of an engaged community of users, and ensured that our community in general (and our events in particular) took the needs of operators into account. Fast-forward to 2020: the upstream focus is more on maintenance. We now have a lot of users, and thanks to the efforts of the UC they are increasingly directly involved in the open source project development, with several operators leading upstream project teams directly. There is now limited UC-specific activity, and as such it is struggling to get volunteers to step up for it: nobody nominated themselves for the last round of election. Keeping two separate bodies to represent them maintains the illusion that devs and ops are different breeds, and sometimes discourages operators from running for the TC and more directly influence the shape of the software. If anything, we need more ops representation at the TC, and seeing people like mnaser being elected at (and chairing) the TC was a great experience. I discussed the situation with the current UC members, and we decided it's time to consider having a single "community" and a single body to represent it. That body would tackle the traditional TC tasks (open source project governance and stewardship) but also the UC tasks (user survey, ambassador program...). That body would be elected by contributors, in a large sense that includes the AUC definition. I feel like that would help remove the artificial barriers discouraging users to get more directly involved with software development and maintenance. There are multiple ways to achieve that, in increasing order of complexity and bylaws changes needed: 1- No bylaws change As bylaws changes take a lot of time and energy, the simplest approach would be to merge the TC and UC without changing the bylaws at all. The single body (called TC) would incorporate the AUC criteria by adding all AUC members as extra-ATC. It would tackle all aspects of our community. To respect the letter of the bylaws, the TC would formally designate 5 of its members to be the 'UC' and those would select a 'UC chair'. But all tasks would be handled together. 2- Minimal bylaws change Same, but all mentions of the UC would be removed from the bylaws (affecting sections 4.12, 4.14, and Appendix 10). This would require a simple vote by the Board of Directors, and would avoid some confusion and having to formally designate a subset of the TC to respect the letter of the bylaws. 3- Maximal bylaws change Create a new body ("steering committee" for example) replacing the TC and the UC. This would require changing sections 4.1, 4.12, 4.13, 4.14, 4.20, 7.1.b, 7.4, 9.1, 9.2.d, and Appendixes 4 and 10. Section 4.13, 7.1 and 7.4 being heavily protected in the bylaws, they require special votes by each class of Foundation members, probably a multi-year effort. A lot of documentation would also need to be changed in case the TC is renamed. I personally don't think the benefit of the change offsets the large cost of option (3). Given the current vacancy in the UC makeup I would recommend we pursue option 1 immediately (starting at the next TC election in April), and propose minimal bylaws change to the board in parallel (option 2). Thoughts ? -- Thierry Carrez

8 16