#opendaylight-group-policy: gbp_status_arch

Meeting started by tbachman at 18:00:03 UTC (full logs).

Meeting summary

  1. agenda (tbachman, 18:00:11)
    1. https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Group_Policy:Sub-Groups:STATUS#Team_Meeting Agend for today’s meeting (tbachman, 18:00:17)
    2. https://meetings.opendaylight.org/opendaylight-group-policy/2015/gbp_status_arch/opendaylight-group-policy-gbp_status_arch.2015-01-02-18.00.html The last meeting minutes that we have (tbachman, 18:00:42)

  2. GBP as Neutron Provider (tbachman, 18:01:03)
    1. GBP can bring benefits to NFV, but to do that, we need to implement a provider to the neutron API (tbachman, 18:05:06)
    2. There are some model enhancements made in order to support this (tbachman, 18:05:59)
    3. the ODL neutron service will be re-used, and will interface to a neutron-to-GBP translator (tbachman, 18:06:14)
    4. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1AO47EYrDMuTAypcpYbL3XOKFggZXu9x00XpGVwJLr9o/edit#slide=id.p presentation that alagalah_ is doing (tbachman, 18:06:29)
    5. Endpoints belong to groups, and the groups interact diretionally using contracts (tbachman, 18:06:42)
    6. Endpoint Groups can specify a default netowkr context for members (tbachman, 18:07:49)
    7. Neutron maps well into GBP — network is a bridge domain, port is an Endpoint, Subnet is a subnet, Security group is an Endpoint Group, and Routers are an L3 context (tbachman, 18:09:02)
    8. alagalah_ says that policy dictates what traffic can pass; with security groups in neutron, a new EPG is created to map to the neutron security group (tbachman, 18:10:11)
    9. an endpoint (port) can then participate in the security group EPG and it’s other EPG (tbachman, 18:10:53)
    10. dbainbri asks if there’s any conflicts when an EP belongs to more than one security group (tbachman, 18:11:06)
    11. alagalah_ says he hasn’t seen anything concrete in terms of conflicts; because it’s a white list model, there’s no ordering, but if there’s ordering needed as a use case, it wouldn’t be hard to add it to the model (tbachman, 18:11:55)
    12. mickey_spiegel says that you don’t have conflicts is b/c it’s all allow rules (tbachman, 18:12:13)
    13. Prem asks if there will be an hierarchical ordering with security groups (tbachman, 18:12:31)
    14. alagalah_ says that the existing model supports inheritance, so it could support that (tbachman, 18:12:43)
    15. A NAT Endpoing Group can be created and an Endpoint can join that group in order to implement NAT (tbachman, 18:13:57)
    16. A similar concept can be used with LBaaS (tbachman, 18:14:18)
    17. for SFC, it’s a bit different, where the service chain is defined by the contract; the EPGs define the relationship to select the contract that implements the chain (tbachman, 18:14:52)
    18. alagalah_ shows that OpenStack passes calls to the ODL Neutron service (via ODL pass-thru neutron Plugin) (tbachman, 18:15:15)
    19. There will be a neutron to GBP translation layer, which then passes things on to GBP (tbachman, 18:15:30)
    20. The neutron to GBP translator doesn’t exist today; we need some changes to the model (EP in multiple EPGs) (tbachman, 18:16:00)
    21. There are also some changes to help some forwarding model constructs (tbachman, 18:16:10)
    22. abhijitkumbhare asks where the GBP openstack fits in this model (tbachman, 18:16:47)
    23. alagalah_ says this is just passing straight neutron to ODL (tbachman, 18:16:56)
    24. abhijitkumbhare asks if we’re using GBP in openstack (tbachman, 18:17:06)
    25. alagalah_ says we’ve already done that integration, but we want to implement a neutron interface in order to support NFV use cases (tbachman, 18:17:32)
    26. alagalah_ says that automated testing setup is needed — not just for this, but for all of ODL — in order to run tempest testing against any neutron provider (tbachman, 18:18:05)
    27. daniel asks if the actions like LBaaS and others are defined, or are these defined by what the renderer supports (tbachman, 18:18:35)
    28. alagalah_ says this is more in the renderer (tbachman, 18:18:41)
    29. daniel says he thinks it would be worthwhile to have a minimal set of action enums defined (tbachman, 18:18:56)
    30. alagalah_ says there’s an enumerated type in the yang model, which currently is only allow (tbachman, 18:19:16)
    31. daniel says there are at least 4 different kinds of actions that they have use cases for (tbachman, 18:19:43)
    32. Louis asks if the redirect to a service chain has been covered (tbachman, 18:20:18)
    33. alagalah_ says that’s what the project is looking at (tbachman, 18:20:30)
    34. cdub asks how you map the VIF UUID to the policy group (did I get that right?) (tbachman, 18:20:51)
    35. cdub asks if the ODL constructs are part of a CRUD call, or are they policies (tbachman, 18:21:41)
    36. cdub says there is no service chain APIs in neutron (tbachman, 18:21:51)
    37. This means openstack would have to inform ODL with the unique policy ID (tbachman, 18:22:08)
    38. Rajeev asks how things are passed from neutron — e.g. policies specific to SFC (tbachman, 18:23:15)
    39. edwarnicke says that neutron constructs must be self contained and are passed thru (tbachman, 18:23:31)
    40. edwarnicke says that constructs that aren’t in neutron have to be piggy-backed (tbachman, 18:23:46)
    41. Rajeev asks if an opaque container could be passed through neutron and given to ODL’s SFC (tbachman, 18:24:37)
    42. edwarnicke says that’s certainly possible (tbachman, 18:24:42)
    43. Rajeev says that this was brought up at the OpenStack design summit and said that we needed to look at the use cases; we may have a use case now (tbachman, 18:25:35)
    44. alagalah_ will update the release plan and trello board with these tasks (tbachman, 18:25:55)

  3. Project status update (tbachman, 18:26:09)
    1. alagalah_ says that openstack GBP integration is complete (tbachman, 18:26:37)
    2. tbachman has been working on the opflex renderer — patch is outstanding (tbachman, 18:28:13)


Meeting ended at 18:28:23 UTC (full logs).

Action items

  1. (none)


People present (lines said)

  1. tbachman (67)
  2. odl_meetbot (5)
  3. yapeng_ (2)
  4. alagalah_ (1)


Generated by MeetBot 0.1.4.