#opendaylight-group-policy: gbp_status_arch

Meeting started by tbachman at 18:00:11 UTC (full logs).

Meeting summary

  1. agenda (tbachman, 18:00:18)
    1. https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Group_Policy:Sub-Groups:STATUS#Team_Meeting Agenda for today’s meeting (tbachman, 18:00:31)
    2. https://meetings.opendaylight.org/opendaylight-group-policy/2015/gbp_150206/opendaylight-group-policy-gbp_150206.2015-02-06-17.58.html Minutes from last week’s meeting (tbachman, 18:00:42)
    3. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZnLHuSiyOmVFR0pW65K4enB7QcYbLL18yzxYgmK_iDo/edit Google document that alagalah created, as an action from last week’s meeting on SFC/GBP integration (tbachman, 18:01:33)

  2. Code merges (alagalah, 18:02:55)
    1. alagalah says there was a bug fix merged by Intel (tbachman, 18:06:12)
    2. alagalah says we’re hoping to merge the opencontrail renderer patch — just need to run the POC to make sure there’s no change functionally (tbachman, 18:06:42)

  3. Neutron impl update (alagalah, 18:07:37)
    1. alagalah met with martin_sunal, who will be helping with the neutron work (tbachman, 18:09:02)
    2. alagalah says he’s kitted up a bulk of the work for multiple EPGs per EP, and intra-group policy, and tested it (tbachman, 18:09:35)
    3. alagalah says from a control plane, it works great (tbachman, 18:09:42)
    4. alagalah says the data plane — specifically the flow pipeline — may need to be worked out a bit, with multiple EPGs (tbachman, 18:10:07)
    5. alagalah is looking at the issues with multi-EPGs (tbachman, 18:10:21)
    6. alagalah is going to compare doing this vs. trying to do this using condition groups — provide a comparison between the two (tbachman, 18:10:48)
    7. alagalah says martin_sunal had the idea of an “ANY” EP — to make a bit of a “grey list” model (instead of white list) (tbachman, 18:12:35)
    8. alagalah says he’s looking at the merits of all of these changes (tbachman, 18:12:54)

  4. SFC and GBP Integration (continued) (alagalah, 18:13:01)
    1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZnLHuSiyOmVFR0pW65K4enB7QcYbLL18yzxYgmK_iDo/edit Google document that alagalah created, as an action from last week’s meeting on SFC/GBP integration (tbachman, 18:13:16)
    2. alagalah says GBP and SFC are working to integrate for an external application — working on a POC for Lithium (tbachman, 18:13:54)
    3. https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Service_Function_Chaining:Group_Based_Policy_Integration Wiki page that repenno created for this integration (tbachman, 18:14:21)
    4. mickey_spiegel asks if we’re relying on separation of topology, encaps or both for conflict avoidance (tbachman, 18:15:51)
    5. alagalah says we may require a constrainted topology, and will require NSH (tbachman, 18:16:06)
    6. ebrjohn says he’d like to see at a minimum that the first solution be flexible enough to support different encaps — specifically MPLS (tbachman, 18:17:01)
    7. alagalah asks where that would sit in the arch (tbachman, 18:17:36)
    8. ebrjohn says to use MPLS instead of NSH (tbachman, 18:17:51)
    9. ebrjohn says NSH doesn’t have many switches supporting it (tbachman, 18:18:04)
    10. ebrjohn says there’s an NSH proxy, which sits between the switch and the service function (tbachman, 18:18:25)
    11. ebrjohn is looking to support MPLS since it’s more common (tbachman, 18:18:38)
    12. alagalah says he thinks it’s achievable, but is still interested in NSH (tbachman, 18:19:06)
    13. ebrjohn says he isn’t advocating excluding NSH, but rather to do both — matter of resources and time (tbachman, 18:19:35)
    14. ebrjohn says he can do it in SFC (tbachman, 18:19:41)
    15. ebrjohn asks if GBP supports MPLS (tbachman, 18:19:57)
    16. alagalah says no, but there’s also currently no NSH encap either yet (tbachman, 18:20:09)
    17. alagalah says if we can get an MPLS encap from SFC, then we should be able to make something work (tbachman, 18:20:30)
    18. ebrjohn says he’s willing to help contribute that code in the GBP project (tbachman, 18:20:41)
    19. Prem says that for MPLS, the label would be used to create a similar path as NSH; asks what the benefit is of both NSH and MPLS (tbachman, 18:21:14)
    20. ebrjohn says he wasn’t thinking both at the same time — just one or the other (tbachman, 18:21:29)
    21. paulq says there’s a case that might bear mentioning, where MPLS and NSH are used; allows extending policy to the services, but use MPLS for the transport (tbachman, 18:24:15)
    22. ebrjohn says that in the case where there are networks that don’t support NSH, the MPLS use case is helpful (tbachman, 18:24:48)
    23. ebrjohn says you can also do MPLS over GRE (tbachman, 18:25:51)
    24. paulq says it’s important to consider one goal of service chaining is the service, and extending policy to the service can be good (tbachman, 18:26:49)
    25. rukhsana asks about the acceptance of the NSH patches in OVS (tbachman, 18:27:17)
    26. paulq says the patches are in, work, and work is in place to get them upstreamed (tbachman, 18:27:36)
    27. abhijitkumbhare asks what the timeline is for phase 0 (tbachman, 18:29:39)
    28. alagalah says Lithium (tbachman, 18:31:07)
    29. abhijitkumbhare asks mickey_spiegel what no encap means — no NSH? (tbachman, 18:31:38)
    30. mickey_spiegel asks if VxLAN stitching falls under no-encap (tbachman, 18:32:00)
    31. abhijitkumbhare says no encap is reclassification at every hop (tbachman, 18:32:29)
    32. paulq says VxLAN is encap (tbachman, 18:32:59)
    33. paulq says SFC needs to hand back what can be used in the chain (tbachman, 18:35:17)
    34. paulq says that’s the only way to make this generalized (tbachman, 18:35:42)
    35. mickey_spiegel asks about the stuff that readams was bringing up on the mailing list (tbachman, 18:35:47)
    36. https://lists.opendaylight.org/pipermail/groupbasedpolicy-dev/2015-February/000903.html email from Rob Adams, talking about mulitiple renderer issue (tbachman, 18:36:36)
    37. alagalah recommends addressing conflict detection/resolution in phase 1 (tbachman, 18:38:02)
    38. ebrjohn says we may want to consider the overlay API as a longer-term goal (tbachman, 18:39:21)
    39. mickey_spiegel asks when SFC says Rendered Service Path, does that mean selecting what the SFFs are, or creating the data path things as well (tbachman, 18:41:48)
    40. paulq says it’s the actual toplogy created for hte service path — SFF1, switch62, FW3, etc. (tbachman, 18:42:09)
    41. repenno says a service function path is a collection of service hops that a user can input as a constraint for constructing a rendered service path (tbachman, 18:44:37)
    42. mickey_spiegel asks if it includes the encap details between them (tbachman, 18:45:47)
    43. repenno says it includes everything if the data plane locators and encaps were provided; RSP provides an ordererd list of SFFs and SFs; the data plane locators are sent through another interface/API (tbachman, 18:46:42)
    44. repenno then looks up the data plane locators and encaps when constructing the RSP (tbachman, 18:47:04)
    45. repenno says if folks want to understand SFC, he gave a demo at the SFC meeting which should help (tbachman, 18:48:54)
    46. https://meetings.webex.com/collabs/meetings/playRecording?recordID=14433636&meetingInstanceID=I3RF8SUSATNXF89CT7CW0PWB30-9VIB Link to SFC presentation from repenno on SFC (tbachman, 18:49:59)
    47. https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Service_Function_Chaining:Main#Meetings (ebrjohn, 18:50:05)
    48. https://meetings.webex.com/collabs/url/VvVrUGAbeDLYPAxlPgmw5TlduQHGLb1gjk5_E1rxDum00000 Alternate link to webex for non-US accounts (tbachman, 18:50:22)
    49. alagalah says openstack GBP already integrates with ODL GBP today (tbachman, 18:50:36)
    50. alagalah says openstack SFC, to his knowledge, has a FW and LB encapsulated in it — when they ask for an SFC, they’re just leveraging the router’s capabilities, and is relatively static (tbachman, 18:51:09)
    51. alagalah asks if the SFC folks are looking to create a neutron API implementation, or is that out of scope (tbachman, 18:51:44)
    52. repenno says he looked into that, and is on his todo list (tbachman, 18:52:02)
    53. alagalah says the GBP neutron provider would also look to support SFC from openstack (tbachman, 18:52:31)
    54. repenno asks if GBP is doing the neutron stuff — is it possible to put this stuff outside GBP or put it in GBP (tbachman, 18:52:53)
    55. alagalah says GBP will create a provider for neutron, so it can integrate with existing neutron (tbachman, 18:53:26)
    56. s3wong says the current Service Chaining implementation is part of the openstack GBP repo (tbachman, 18:54:03)
    57. ebrjohn asks if we can get GBP and SFC integrated and it works well, do we need to do this in ODL? (tbachman, 18:54:37)
    58. alagalah says he doesn’t want to preclude SFC from doing any integration that their project is interested in doing (tbachman, 18:55:00)
    59. repenno says we need to wait and see what that looks like (tbachman, 18:55:09)
    60. songole says openstack has a firewalll and load balancer today; (tbachman, 18:57:17)
    61. s3wong says Neutron has no "service insertion" framework, the reference doesn't really have a good data path plumbing (tbachman, 18:58:24)
    62. s3wong says there is a service chain API/plugin infra on the OpenStack GBP repo (tbachman, 18:58:51)
    63. s3wong says the point is, since we can’t translate: map a flow match a classifier to direct that traffic flow to a service, the data path part would be great to have an Open-source reference that truly works (tbachman, 18:59:46)
    64. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1AO47EYrDMuTAypcpYbL3XOKFggZXu9x00XpGVwJLr9o/edit#slide=id.g612a6349b_0205 slides for neutron integration (tbachman, 19:00:37)
    65. alagalah asks what the best way is to track inter-project work? Trello? (tbachman, 19:03:01)
    66. ebrjohn says he’s fine (as SFC PTL) for hosting this on the GBP Trello (tbachman, 19:03:14)
    67. https://trello.com/b/yc0xHFlv/opendaylight-groupbasedpolicy-lithium GBP Trello Board, with GBP/SFC integration cards (tbachman, 19:03:32)
    68. https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/15255/ initial patch to start SFC/GBP conversation (tbachman, 19:07:17)


Meeting ended at 19:08:41 UTC (full logs).

Action items

  1. (none)


People present (lines said)

  1. tbachman (119)
  2. s3wong (12)
  3. odl_meetbot (8)
  4. ebrjohn (5)
  5. alagalah (3)
  6. abhijitkumbhare (2)
  7. gzhao (1)
  8. dbainbri1 (1)


Generated by MeetBot 0.1.4.