Open Stack

It is always hard to find a day and time that is good for everyone around the globe:-)
The first meeting will still be UTC 1700 ~ UTC 1800 May 17 on Neutron channel. 
In the meeting, we can see if we can reach consensus on a new meeting time. 

Cathy

-----Original Message-----
From: Takashi Yamamoto [mailto:yamamoto at midokura.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 12:40 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] work on Common Flow Classifier and OVS Agent extension for Newton cycle

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:41 AM,  <thomas.morin at orange.com> wrote:
> Hi Cathy,
>
> Cathy Zhang:
>>
>> I will tentatively set the meeting time to UTC 1700 ~ UTC 1800 Tuesday.
>> Hope this time is good for all people who have interest and like to 
>> contribute to this work. We plan to start the first meeting on May 17.
>
>
> I would be happy to participate, but I'm unlikely to be able to attend 
> at that time.
> Might 15:00 UTC work for others ?

+1 for earlier

> If not, well, I'll make do with log/emails/pads/gerrit interactions.
>
> -Thomas
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Cathy Zhang
>> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 11:43 AM
>> To: Cathy Zhang; OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage 
>> questions); Ihar Hrachyshka; Vikram Choudhary; Sean M. Collins; Haim 
>> Daniel; Mathieu Rohon; Shaughnessy, David; Eichberger, German; Henry 
>> Fourie; armamig at gmail.com; Miguel Angel Ajo; Reedip; Thierry Carrez
>> Cc: Cathy Zhang
>> Subject: RE: [openstack-dev] [neutron] work on Common Flow Classifier 
>> and OVS Agent extension for Newton cycle
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> We have room 400 at 3:10pm on Thursday available for discussion of 
>> the two topics.
>> Another option is to use the common room with roundtables in "Salon C"
>> during Monday or Wednesday lunch time.
>>
>> Room 400 at 3:10pm is a closed room while the Salon C is a big open 
>> room which can host 500 people.
>>
>> I am Ok with either option. Let me know if anyone has a strong preference.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Cathy
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Cathy Zhang
>> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 1:23 PM
>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions); 
>> 'Ihar Hrachyshka'; Vikram Choudhary; 'Sean M. Collins'; 'Haim 
>> Daniel'; 'Mathieu Rohon'; 'Shaughnessy, David'; 'Eichberger, German'; 
>> Cathy Zhang; Henry Fourie; 'armamig at gmail.com'
>> Subject: RE: [openstack-dev] [neutron] work on Common Flow Classifier 
>> and OVS Agent extension for Newton cycle
>>
>> Thanks for everyone's reply!
>>
>> Here is the summary based on the replies I received:
>>
>> 1.  We should have a meet-up for these two topics. The "to" list are 
>> the people who have interest in these topics.
>>      I am thinking about around lunch time on Tuesday or Wednesday 
>> since some of us will fly back on Friday morning/noon.
>>      If this time is OK with everyone, I will find a place and let 
>> you know where and what time to meet.
>>
>> 2.  There is a bug opened for the QoS Flow Classifier
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1527671
>> We can either change the bug title and modify the bug details or 
>> start with a new one for the common FC which provides info on all 
>> requirements needed by all relevant use cases. There is a bug opened 
>> for OVS agent extension 
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1517903
>>
>> 3.  There are some very rough, ugly as Sean put it:-), and 
>> preliminary work on common FC 
>> https://github.com/openstack/neutron-classifier which we can see how 
>> to leverage. There is also a SFC API spec which covers the FC API for 
>> SFC usage 
>> https://github.com/openstack/networking-sfc/blob/master/doc/source/ap
>> i.rst, the following is the CLI version of the Flow Classifier for 
>> your
>> reference:
>>
>> neutron flow-classifier-create [-h]
>>          [--description <description>]
>>          [--protocol <protocol>]
>>          [--ethertype <Ethertype>]
>>          [--source-port <Minimum source protocol port>:<Maximum 
>> source protocol port>]
>>          [--destination-port <Minimum destination protocol 
>> port>:<Maximum destination protocol port>]
>>          [--source-ip-prefix <Source IP prefix>]
>>          [--destination-ip-prefix <Destination IP prefix>]
>>          [--logical-source-port <Neutron source port>]
>>          [--logical-destination-port <Neutron destination port>]
>>          [--l7-parameters <L7 parameter>] FLOW-CLASSIFIER-NAME
>>
>> The corresponding code is here
>> https://github.com/openstack/networking-sfc/tree/master/networking_sf
>> c/extensions
>>
>> 4.  We should come up with a formal Neutron spec for FC and another 
>> one for OVS Agent extension and get everyone's review and approval. 
>> Here is the etherpad catching our previous requirement discussion on 
>> OVS agent (Thanks David for the link! I remember we had this 
>> discussion before) 
>> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/l2-agent-extensions-api-expansion
>>
>>
>> More inline.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Cathy
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ihar Hrachyshka [mailto:ihrachys at redhat.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 3:34 AM
>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] work on Common Flow Classifier 
>> and OVS Agent extension for Newton cycle
>>
>> Cathy Zhang <Cathy.H.Zhang at huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> Per Armando’s request, Louis and I are looking into the following 
>>> features for Newton cycle.
>>> ·         Neutron Common FC used for SFC, QoS, Tap as a service etc.,
>>> ·         OVS Agent extension
>>> Some of you might know that we already developed a FC in 
>>> networking-sfc project and QoS also has a FC. It makes sense that we 
>>> have one common FC in Neutron that could be shared by SFC, QoS, Tap 
>>> as a service etc.
>>> features in Neutron.
>>
>> I don’t actually know of any classifier in QoS. It’s only planned to 
>> emerge, but there are no specs or anything specific to the feature.
>>
>> Anyway, I agree that classifier API belongs to core neutron and 
>> should be reused by all interested subprojects from there.
>>
>>> Different features may extend OVS agent and add different new OVS 
>>> flow tables to support their new functionality. A mechanism is 
>>> needed to ensure consistent OVS flow table modification when 
>>> multiple features co-exist. AFAIK, there is some preliminary work on 
>>> this, but it is not a complete solution yet.
>>
>> I think there is no formal spec or anything, just some emails around 
>> there.
>>
>> That said, I don’t follow why it’s a requirement for SFC to switch to 
>> l2 agent extension mechanism. Even today, with SFC maintaining its 
>> own agent, there are no clear guarantees for flow priorities that 
>> would avoid all possible conflicts.
>>
>> Cathy> There is no requirement for SFC to switch. My understanding is 
>> Cathy> that
>> current L2 agent extension does not solve the conflicting entry issue 
>> if two features inject the same priority table entry. I think this 
>> new L2 agent effort is try to come up with a mechanism to resolve 
>> this issue. Of course if each feature( SFC or Qos) uses its own 
>> agent, then there is no coordination and no way to avoid conflicts.
>>
>>> We will like to start these effort by collecting requirements and 
>>> then posting specifications for review. If any of you would like to 
>>> join this effort, please chime in. We can set up a meet-up session 
>>> in the Summit to discuss this face-in-face.
>>
>> Great. Let’s have a meetup for this topic.
>>
>> Ihar
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> _____ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: 
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> _____ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: 
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ___________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, 
> exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message 
> par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi 
> que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles 
> d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete 
> altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or 
> privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not 
> be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and 
> delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have 
> been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ____ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: 
> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev