#opendaylight-group-policy: ODL-GBP-MODEL

Meeting started by dconde at 17:04:53 UTC (full logs).

Meeting summary

    1. it’s Friday (tbachman, 17:07:22)
    2. Friday morning typing experiment. (dvorkinista, 17:07:43)

  2. review model (dconde, 17:08:11)
    1. questions on model? by readams (dconde, 17:08:24)
    2. one thing that may be useful is to look at the latest file (dconde, 17:08:39)
    3. jan wants deleta (dconde, 17:08:58)
    4. adding context (dconde, 17:09:02)
    5. rename role into requirements (dconde, 17:09:08)
    6. moving stuff around to the back (dconde, 17:09:13)
    7. change to structure of document (dconde, 17:09:17)
    8. no semantic change (dconde, 17:09:22)
    9. change not pushed into repo is the removing of namespace inheritance mapper in the parameters. (dconde, 17:09:46)
    10. the way inheritance working is that it does not add much. name can be in te matcher itself (dconde, 17:10:15)
    11. no useful way of using it. (dconde, 17:10:27)
    12. matcher quality vs. matcher xyz on the same name space was not too useful. It's best to define a different matcher with different semantics. (dconde, 17:11:07)
    13. you can still over-ride it. (dconde, 17:11:19)
    14. when you inherit a matcher. there are matcher labels with the addition of NS parameters (NS=name space) (dconde, 17:11:42)
    15. a lebel in the child EPG inheri fro parent EPG (dconde, 17:11:57)
    16. if the label with the same name in the child, it replaces it. (dconde, 17:12:12)
    17. if it is defined in the child, it over-rides the parent matcher. (dconde, 17:12:45)
    18. can you exclude a label? Yes. (dconde, 17:12:57)
    19. if you define a label in child of anything, it will override the parent UNLESS you set hte inheritance to exclude, then the label will not be there. (dconde, 17:13:49)
    20. that is called the inclusion rule. (dconde, 17:13:58)
    21. dvorkinista says it's like the polymoprhism. (dconde, 17:14:39)
    22. we can add overrides later. We should not import all semantics of programming languages into this this, just because you can. (dconde, 17:15:44)
    23. uchau is talking about complex typse. (dconde, 17:16:21)
    24. yang tools do not support that? can jan confirm that? (dconde, 17:16:37)
    25. it's just not implemented in ODL? asks uchau (dconde, 17:16:46)
    26. can we just put chd inside parent in complex types. (dconde, 17:17:07)
    27. dvokinista says that is discourged in obj oriented systems. (dconde, 17:17:27)
    28. the model is reasonable, says readams. (dconde, 17:17:33)
    29. janmedved was there when it was defined. (dconde, 17:17:44)
    30. this is the best we can do. we can explore extension to YANG. it does complicate things. (dconde, 17:18:10)
    31. tree structure and the simple way to create it is lending itself to a simple implementation. we are exploring extension to YANG. (dconde, 17:18:36)
    32. there aer advantages in lookup behavior in doing it that way. (dconde, 17:19:24)
    33. uchau it is simpler from tree traversal point of view. it would be nice, dvokinista agrees it would be nice. (dconde, 17:20:00)
    34. we can return link to parent in REST API, for example. (dconde, 17:20:30)
    35. said readams. (dconde, 17:20:34)
    36. when you have a ref to someting in a subtree, we can include an actual URI. (dconde, 17:20:50)
    37. regxboi gets clarified. (dconde, 17:21:00)
    38. regxboi says RESTconf does not do that today. it's a pointer, not a URI (dconde, 17:21:27)
    39. we can do an extension , says readams (dconde, 17:21:45)

  3. traffic (dconde, 17:22:12)
    1. traffic within an EPG (dconde, 17:22:19)
    2. 1) always allowed. (dconde, 17:22:27)
    3. 2) traffic not allowed, and we need to enable it via a CONTRACT (dconde, 17:22:39)
    4. dvorkinista says allow is like how VLANs work. (dconde, 17:23:02)
    5. not allowed is like VDI. (dconde, 17:23:12)
    6. or do a contract, that satisfied HP requirements. (dconde, 17:23:24)
    7. challenge - how to define the policy in multi-cast and broadcast. Between EPG we can do unicast (dconde, 17:23:57)
    8. if we ignore multicast, we can have a peering contract. (dconde, 17:24:10)
    9. define a set of sibjects within EPG (dconde, 17:24:44)
    10. or define a peer. (dconde, 17:24:49)
    11. we need a way to apply a contract by stating it's a peer -- no direction. (dconde, 17:25:34)
    12. we can say something like EPG -- all elements are allowed, or we can say all classifiers are interpreted as bidi as a peer. (dconde, 17:26:06)
    13. since we do not want to define a new type of classifier with no direction. (dconde, 17:26:18)
    14. we can prefabricate things, and put tha tinto the group itself. (dconde, 17:26:55)
    15. but that complicates things, says dvorkinista (dconde, 17:27:06)
    16. we need a differet model (dconde, 17:27:15)
    17. we need a new MODE. (dconde, 17:27:24)
    18. regxboi says - his gut reaction is lot of complexity for small incr. gain. (dconde, 17:28:16)
    19. readams -- outside a Datacenter, we need it. (dconde, 17:28:29)
    20. regxboi cries fowl (dconde, 17:28:34)
    21. dvorkinista says we have requirements for different use cases from yesterday. (dconde, 17:29:12)
    22. less moving parts is better? (dconde, 17:29:57)
    23. regxboi says -- to degenerate conclusion, we need to to talk about contracts on EP? (dconde, 17:30:15)
    24. people say no, it's a group attribute. (dconde, 17:30:23)
    25. you either turn all OFF or ON, or provide a contract. (dconde, 17:30:45)
    26. we can have a bunch of app servers, and allow no HTTP or SSH, and only allow control protocols. (dconde, 17:31:10)
    27. we need a model on the EPG for allow or deny. (dconde, 17:31:40)
    28. dvorkista this enables unified communications - sessions between different callers (End Pts) (dconde, 17:32:18)
    29. boundaries are a TENANT. (dconde, 17:32:49)
    30. cross tenant mutations -- have particular mechanisms for that. (dconde, 17:33:07)
    31. uchau needs clarification. (dconde, 17:33:27)
    32. EP are producer/consumer. we are introducing a ShORTcut since it's highly inconvenient. (dconde, 17:33:54)
    33. we want to emulate VLAN behavior. (dconde, 17:34:00)
    34. ans also the VDI behavior when no endpoint can talk to each other. (dconde, 17:34:15)
    35. traffic belongs are defined as something within a group. (dconde, 17:34:34)
    36. that makes it easier to understand. (dconde, 17:34:50)
    37. we are folding contract concept within an EPG? (dconde, 17:34:58)
    38. you will need to select contract by name (dconde, 17:35:13)
    39. so we cannot enable anyone else to name and consume traffic. (dconde, 17:35:30)
    40. are we stepping into restrictions? (dconde, 17:36:06)
    41. it's not an issue of who gets to consume or not. (dconde, 17:36:22)
    42. semantics for peer A can talk to Peer B (dconde, 17:36:32)
    43. where does that get folded? in a contract. (dconde, 17:36:47)
    44. uchau says do we have a special selector (dconde, 17:36:59)
    45. we will have a special peer thing. for unified comm. we want to specify it once. (dconde, 17:37:17)
    46. a select pts to a contract and then within a contract . how do we do the peer-to-peer association (dconde, 17:38:03)
    47. a group specified a session. (dconde, 17:38:08)
    48. if there are two EP, then there are 2 EP in a group. (dconde, 17:38:23)
    49. we define a contract for the ENTIRE group. (dconde, 17:39:28)
    50. we are not talking about End point to End point contracts. (dconde, 17:39:38)
    51. uchau needs clarification (dconde, 17:40:03)
    52. subgorup of two users? Not really. (dconde, 17:40:21)
    53. lets say. session represents a group (dconde, 17:40:47)
    54. a set of ports that members of the group will be talking to. (dconde, 17:40:56)
    55. they will use the contracts that ….specify (dconde, 17:41:24)
    56. we are switching to the whiteboard. (dconde, 17:41:35)
    57. INTRA group comm via a PORT is a simple use-case (dconde, 17:42:40)
    58. now a diff example (dconde, 17:43:08)
    59. a DB cluster (dconde, 17:43:18)
    60. a contract called SQL is applied (dconde, 17:43:29)
    61. we want to restrict - to clustering protocol only. (dconde, 17:43:46)
    62. we say there is a peer within group pointing to clustering protocol contract. (dconde, 17:44:04)
    63. it is similar to contracts. it is scoped to group only (dconde, 17:44:24)
    64. what about direction? (dconde, 17:44:56)
    65. if a contracts has requirements/capability matchers. how do we eval them? (dconde, 17:45:55)
    66. any reason for a peer target selector? no (dconde, 17:50:15)
    67. AGREED: name selectors are sufficient. (dconde, 17:51:20)
    68. how do we have tie breaker rules? (dconde, 17:51:37)
    69. if there are two, then we apply them in order. (dconde, 17:52:07)
    70. multiple contracts in scope is OK. (dconde, 17:52:17)
    71. under rule application, go read that. let readams if that's wrong. (dconde, 17:53:24)
    72. AGREED: we need to go read it and then talk next week (dconde, 17:53:39)
    73. subject have order. (dconde, 17:54:06)
    74. we have ordering rules for how they are applied (dconde, 17:54:19)
    75. no mixing of rules in ACLs. that will not work. (dconde, 17:54:31)
    76. read rule applicaton secton and subjects under inheritance. (dconde, 17:54:43)
    77. regxboi says we are running out of time. he cannot make it to that one. (dconde, 17:55:17)
    78. regxboi delegates to mspiegel. (dconde, 17:55:28)
    79. HELP: (dconde, 17:56:05)
    80. uchau wants policu def in JSON fmt. (dconde, 17:56:38)
    81. please read Wiki and bring it up under RESTCONF now. (dconde, 17:56:55)
    82. ask readams postings under mailing list. (dconde, 17:57:22)
    83. if you go into swagger api docs, if you look at what it says, then only a small subset will work. so jan will look (dconde, 17:59:29)
    84. put and post have different impl, and we think semantics are slightly different. (dconde, 17:59:47)
    85. not high priorities. (dconde, 17:59:57)
    86. go look in YANG model for the fields in a JSON obj under relevant type (dconde, 18:00:38)
    87. use FireFox not Chrome (dconde, 18:01:07)
    88. ACTION: readams will send link to mailing list on the use of REST API. -- it's better than curl from cmd line. (dconde, 18:02:35)


Meeting ended at 18:03:13 UTC (full logs).

Action items

  1. readams will send link to mailing list on the use of REST API. -- it's better than curl from cmd line.


People present (lines said)

  1. dconde (138)
  2. odl_meetbot (7)
  3. tbachman (4)
  4. alagalah_ (4)
  5. dvorkinista (1)
  6. s3wong (1)
  7. regxboi (0)
  8. alagalah (0)


Generated by MeetBot 0.1.4.