Re: [opencontrail-dev] FYI: OpenContrail Move to LF - in the news

2017-12-15 Thread Foucault de Bonneval 
Also Greg Ferro in Briefings-in-brief.

http://packetpushers.net/podcast/briefings-in-brief/bib-019-juniper-networks-moves-opencontrail-linux-foundation/


Foucault

2017-12-14 22:53 GMT+01:00 St Leger, Jim :

> By now I’m guessing that nearly everyone has heard the announcement by
> Juniper at their NXTWORK user conference about moving OpenContrail over to
> The Linux Foundation.  And I know several people are involved in looking at
> the repos to identify exactly what codebase needs to be moved over.  But if
> you haven’t heard or are interested in a bit more detail (and I don’t think
> I saw any direct mention of the news in the mailing lists and developer
> forums) here are some links to the Juniper press release and SDxCentral
> story. Paul Carver is quoted in the latter and Randy Bias in both pieces.
>
>
>
> Wishing everyone a wonderful holiday these coming weeks. Ho ho ho… o<|8^D
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> Juniper NXTWORK press release from Tuesday:
>
> http://investor.juniper.net/investor-relations/press-
> releases/press-release-details/2017/Juniper-Networks-
> Reinforces-Longstanding-Commitment-to-Open-Source-by-
> Moving-OpenContrails-Codebase-to-the-Linux-Foundation/default.aspx
>
>
>
> SDxCentral article https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/juniper-moves-
> opencontrail-linux-foundation/2017/12/?c_action=home_slider
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Dev mailing list
> Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
> http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org
>
>
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org

Re: [opencontrail-dev] We need a new name

2017-11-28 Thread Foucault de Bonneval 
Hi there,

Got a couple of ideas :
- "Ankur" as a mark of respect to Contrail System's CEO
- "One0six" as the first version release deployed in production by a few of
us

'Am no marketing guy as could have guessed from my proposals.


Enjoy,
Foucault

Le 28 nov. 2017 8:27 PM, "Gregory Elkinbard"  a
écrit :

> Dear Community Members.
>
> Linux Foundation is unable to accept OpenContrail as a trademark to the
> project as Juniper has Contrail product line.
>
> We need to select a different name. Legal team has offered OpenVTrail. But
> I am hoping that folks can come up with something cooler.
>
>
>
> Please send in your name proposals, by Dec 4th and lets discuss it during
> the summit.
>
> Requirements for the name. Full name must be unique and not currently
> trademarked.
>
> If the name is a composite, no part of the composite can be trademarked by
> another entity.
>
>
>
> Linux foundation can temporarily accept us under the OpenContrail name,
> but will require a new name after a short transition period.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> ___
> Dev mailing list
> Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
> http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org
>
>
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org

Re: [opencontrail-dev] [TSC WG] Transitioning to open source - PLEASE VOTE

2017-09-19 Thread Foucault de Bonneval 
2




Le 19 sept. 2017 21:35, "Gasparakis, Joseph" 
a écrit :

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Transitioning into an open source model it makes sense for Juniper to have
> for the first public release more control than others since they have all
> the knowledge and it makes sense for them to be able to prevent radical
> architectural changes.
>
>
>
> In the last TSC WG call we came up with a few proposals:
>
>
>
> 1.   Allow someone in Juniper have veto powers to reject a proposed
> change
>
> 2.   Create an  Architectural Review Board (ARB as defined in
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zNIVEOY3XsnUdYKy1ddwgjJoOV-
> Iwx1pHU_8ViYlTFs/edit) that will be reviewing in order to accept or
> reject architectural proposals, and Juniper to have the majority of the
> seats so they can control by the power of majority what goes in and what
> not.
>
>
>
> If we decide for 2, we can choose at a later stage if we will have an ARB
> ongoing or only for this first release.
>
>
>
> Please vote one of the two options and for the sake of openness and
> transparency REPLY ALL so your vote is visible to the whole list. If I
> receive any private votes I will be forwarding them to this list.
>
>
>
> Also please vote by end of day today as we would like to have this
> decision made during the summit tomorrow.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Joseph
>
>
>
> --
>
> [image: intel-logo-small]
>
> Joseph Gasparakis
>
> Intel Corporation
>
> Networking Platforms Group
>
> Architecture Division
>
>
>
> ___
> Dev mailing list
> Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
> http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org
>
>
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org

Re: [opencontrail-dev] Customized Contrail installation

2016-10-12 Thread Foucault de Bonneval 
It did not make sense to me to have two separate clusters in the same
deployment.
A I thought you said it was, I asked for details.
But I was wrong.
So we agree it makes no sense.

Foucault

2016-10-12 16:48 GMT+02:00 Harshad Nakil <hna...@gmail.com>:

> Let me ask why does it make sense to you?
>
> Zookeeper is used to implement distributed locking or unique ID
> allocation. Pattern of use is exactly same in config and analytics. It does
> not make sense to operate two clusters.
>
> This is not same with Cassandra, pattern of use and Cassandra tuning may
> be different hence it makes sense to deprecate Cassandra.
>
>
> Regards
> -Harshad
>
>
> On Oct 12, 2016, at 7:42 AM, Foucault de Bonneval <fouca...@thaumiers.com>
> wrote:
>
> Sorry, missed the "not" :p
>
> Foucault
>
> 2016-10-12 16:39 GMT+02:00 Harshad Nakil <hna...@gmail.com>:
>
>> I am not recommending. It was suggested in email below. I am against that
>> recommendation.
>>
>> Regards
>> -Harshad
>>
>>
>> On Oct 12, 2016, at 7:21 AM, Foucault de Bonneval <fouca...@thaumiers.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Harshad,
>>
>> Could you explain why you'd recommend a Zookeeper cluster for analytics ?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Foucault
>>
>> 2016-10-12 15:39 GMT+02:00 Harshad Nakil <hna...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> No we cannot. I will also not recommend analytics having its own
>>> zookeeper.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> -Harshad
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 12, 2016, at 12:53 AM, Pavani Addanki <pavani.adda...@tcs.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Jakub,
>>>
>>>  Can we set a Centralized analytics node. (ex for 5 Contrail instances
>>> with 1 single Analytics node)
>>>
>>> Pavani
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From:Jakub Pavlik <jakub.pav...@tcpcloud.eu>
>>> To:Pavani Addanki <pavani.adda...@tcs.com>
>>> Cc:Edgar Magana <edgar.mag...@workday.com>, "
>>> dev@lists.opencontrail.org" <dev@lists.opencontrail.org>
>>> Date:10/11/2016 12:59 AM
>>> Subject:Re: [opencontrail-dev] Customized Contrail installation
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Pavani,
>>>
>>> what I recommend you is to separate analytics from other components with
>>> own cassandra, zookeeper, kafka cluster.
>>>
>>> Then you can set disable_flow_collection=True on contrail-collector as
>>> well as vrouter-agent. Next step can be set ttl on all analytics data to 1
>>> and change compaction strategy on cassandra cluster to
>>> DateTieredCompactionStrategy.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jakub
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Pavani Addanki <
>>> *pavani.adda...@tcs.com* <pavani.adda...@tcs.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Thanks Edgar
>>>
>>> Pavani
>>> 
>>>
>>>  -Edgar Magana <*edgar.mag...@workday.com*
>>> <edgar.mag...@workday.com>> wrote: -
>>>
>>>  ===
>>>  To: Pavani Addanki <*pavani.adda...@tcs.com* <pavani.adda...@tcs.com>>,
>>> "*dev@lists.opencontrail.org* <dev@lists.opencontrail.org>" <
>>> *dev@lists.opencontrail.org* <dev@lists.opencontrail.org>>
>>>  From: Edgar Magana <*edgar.mag...@workday.com*
>>> <edgar.mag...@workday.com>>
>>>  Date: 10/10/2016 09:20PM
>>>  Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] Customized Contrail installation
>>>  ===
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>> We deploy OpenContrail 2.21 in two different nodes. One is running all
>>> control, config and ifmap resources when the other only analytics and web
>>> UI.
>>> If the second node goes down, we can still create resources and data
>>> plane is not affected. However, it is not being designed to work that well.
>>> So, I will not recommend it.
>>>
>>> Edgar
>>>
>>> From: Dev <*dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org*
>>> <dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org>> on behalf of Pavani Addanki <
>>> *pavani.adda...@tcs.com* <pavani.adda...@tcs.com>>
>>> Date: Monday, October 10, 2016 at 1:20 AM
>>> To: "*dev@lists.opencontrail.org* <dev

Re: [opencontrail-dev] Customized Contrail installation

2016-10-12 Thread Foucault de Bonneval 
Harshad,

Could you explain why you'd recommend a Zookeeper cluster for analytics ?

Thanks,
Foucault

2016-10-12 15:39 GMT+02:00 Harshad Nakil :

> No we cannot. I will also not recommend analytics having its own
> zookeeper.
>
> Regards
> -Harshad
>
>
> On Oct 12, 2016, at 12:53 AM, Pavani Addanki 
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Jakub,
>
>  Can we set a Centralized analytics node. (ex for 5 Contrail instances
> with 1 single Analytics node)
>
> Pavani
>
> 
>
>
>
>
> From:Jakub Pavlik 
> To:Pavani Addanki 
> Cc:Edgar Magana , "
> dev@lists.opencontrail.org" 
> Date:10/11/2016 12:59 AM
> Subject:Re: [opencontrail-dev] Customized Contrail installation
> --
>
>
>
> Hi Pavani,
>
> what I recommend you is to separate analytics from other components with
> own cassandra, zookeeper, kafka cluster.
>
> Then you can set disable_flow_collection=True on contrail-collector as
> well as vrouter-agent. Next step can be set ttl on all analytics data to 1
> and change compaction strategy on cassandra cluster to
> DateTieredCompactionStrategy.
>
>
> Jakub
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Pavani Addanki <*pavani.adda...@tcs.com*
> > wrote:
>
>  Thanks Edgar
>
> Pavani
> 
>
>  -Edgar Magana <*edgar.mag...@workday.com* >
> wrote: -
>
>  ===
>  To: Pavani Addanki <*pavani.adda...@tcs.com* >, "
> *dev@lists.opencontrail.org* " <
> *dev@lists.opencontrail.org* >
>  From: Edgar Magana <*edgar.mag...@workday.com* 
> >
>  Date: 10/10/2016 09:20PM
>  Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] Customized Contrail installation
>  ===
>Hello,
>
> We deploy OpenContrail 2.21 in two different nodes. One is running all
> control, config and ifmap resources when the other only analytics and web
> UI.
> If the second node goes down, we can still create resources and data plane
> is not affected. However, it is not being designed to work that well. So, I
> will not recommend it.
>
> Edgar
>
> From: Dev <*dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org*
> > on behalf of Pavani Addanki <
> *pavani.adda...@tcs.com* >
> Date: Monday, October 10, 2016 at 1:20 AM
> To: "*dev@lists.opencontrail.org* " <
> *dev@lists.opencontrail.org* >
> Subject: [opencontrail-dev] Customized Contrail installation
>
> Hi All,
>
> Can we install Contrail without Analytics node.
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> Pavani
>
> =-=-=
> Notice: The information contained in this e-mail
> message and/or attachments to it may contain
> confidential or privileged information. If you are
> not the intended recipient, any dissemination, use,
> review, distribution, printing or copying of the
> information contained in this e-mail message
> and/or attachments to it are strictly prohibited. If
> you have received this communication in error,
> please notify us by reply e-mail or telephone and
> immediately and permanently delete the message
> and any attachments. Thank you
>
>
> ___
> Dev mailing list
> *Dev@lists.opencontrail.org* 
> *http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org*
> 
>
> ___
> Dev mailing list
> Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
> http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org
>
>
> ___
> Dev mailing list
> Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
> http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org
>
>
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org

Re: [opencontrail-dev] Opencontrail network throughput performance

2016-06-27 Thread Foucault de Bonneval 
Hi Jakub,

MTU is at 9000 on the physical, the bond ans the vhost.
MTU inside the VM is 1500.

Foucault

2016-06-27 18:48 GMT+02:00 Jakub Pavlik <jakub.pav...@tcpcloud.eu>:

> HI Foucault,
>
> do you have MTU 9000 everywhere? Even tap interface outside and inside of
> VM?
>
> Jakub
>
>
> On 27.6.2016 18:35, Foucault de Bonneval wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> We are actually running new benchmarks on Opencontrail 2.21.x version.
> The maximum throughput we can get is :
>  - ~6Gb/s in "half duplex" from VM A -> VM B or VM B -> VM A
>  - ~3.5Gb/s in "full duplex" in a VM A <-> VM B pattern
>
> Tests are run with Iperf on Ubuntu 14.04, computes are also on Ubuntu
> 14.04, kernel 3.13.0-83-generic
>
>
> Does anyone have run similar tests and may have results to share ?
> If anyone have dig on optimizations on a system level that could improve
> those results, I'd love some informations.
>
> Thanks,
> Foucault
>
>
> CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2670 v3 @ 2.30GHz (48 cores)
>
> # lspci
> 01:00.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82599ES 10-Gigabit SFI/SFP+
> Network Connection (rev 01)
> 01:00.1 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82599ES 10-Gigabit SFI/SFP+
> Network Connection (rev 01)
>
>
> # ethtool -k vhost0
> Features for vhost0:
> rx-checksumming: off [fixed]
> tx-checksumming: on
> tx-checksum-ipv4: on [fixed]
> tx-checksum-ip-generic: off [fixed]
> tx-checksum-ipv6: off [fixed]
> tx-checksum-fcoe-crc: off [fixed]
> tx-checksum-sctp: off [fixed]
> scatter-gather: on
> tx-scatter-gather: on [fixed]
> tx-scatter-gather-fraglist: off [fixed]
> tcp-segmentation-offload: on
> tx-tcp-segmentation: on [fixed]
> tx-tcp-ecn-segmentation: off [fixed]
> tx-tcp6-segmentation: off [fixed]
> udp-fragmentation-offload: off [fixed]
> generic-segmentation-offload: on
> generic-receive-offload: on
> large-receive-offload: off [fixed]
> rx-vlan-offload: off [fixed]
> tx-vlan-offload: off [fixed]
> ntuple-filters: off [fixed]
> receive-hashing: off [fixed]
> highdma: off [fixed]
> rx-vlan-filter: off [fixed]
> vlan-challenged: off [fixed]
> tx-lockless: off [fixed]
> netns-local: off [fixed]
> tx-gso-robust: off [fixed]
> tx-fcoe-segmentation: off [fixed]
> tx-gre-segmentation: off [fixed]
> tx-ipip-segmentation: off [fixed]
> tx-sit-segmentation: off [fixed]
> tx-udp_tnl-segmentation: off [fixed]
> tx-mpls-segmentation: off [fixed]
> fcoe-mtu: off [fixed]
> tx-nocache-copy: off
> loopback: off [fixed]
> rx-fcs: off [fixed]
> rx-all: off [fixed]
> tx-vlan-stag-hw-insert: off [fixed]
> rx-vlan-stag-hw-parse: off [fixed]
> rx-vlan-stag-filter: off [fixed]
> l2-fwd-offload: off [fixed]
>
>
> ___
> Dev mailing 
> listDev@lists.opencontrail.orghttp://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org
>
>
> --
> Jakub Pavlik
> CTO
>
> [tcp ◕ cloud]
> +420 602 177 027jakub.pav...@tcpcloud.eu
>
> tcp cloud a.s.
> Thamova 16
> 186 00 Praha 8 - Karlin
> Czech republichttp://tcpcloud.euhttp://opentcpcloud.org
>
>
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org

[opencontrail-dev] Opencontrail network throughput performance

2016-06-27 Thread Foucault de Bonneval 
Hi there,

We are actually running new benchmarks on Opencontrail 2.21.x version.
The maximum throughput we can get is :
 - ~6Gb/s in "half duplex" from VM A -> VM B or VM B -> VM A
 - ~3.5Gb/s in "full duplex" in a VM A <-> VM B pattern

Tests are run with Iperf on Ubuntu 14.04, computes are also on Ubuntu
14.04, kernel 3.13.0-83-generic


Does anyone have run similar tests and may have results to share ?
If anyone have dig on optimizations on a system level that could improve
those results, I'd love some informations.

Thanks,
Foucault


CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2670 v3 @ 2.30GHz (48 cores)

# lspci
01:00.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82599ES 10-Gigabit SFI/SFP+
Network Connection (rev 01)
01:00.1 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82599ES 10-Gigabit SFI/SFP+
Network Connection (rev 01)


# ethtool -k vhost0
Features for vhost0:
rx-checksumming: off [fixed]
tx-checksumming: on
tx-checksum-ipv4: on [fixed]
tx-checksum-ip-generic: off [fixed]
tx-checksum-ipv6: off [fixed]
tx-checksum-fcoe-crc: off [fixed]
tx-checksum-sctp: off [fixed]
scatter-gather: on
tx-scatter-gather: on [fixed]
tx-scatter-gather-fraglist: off [fixed]
tcp-segmentation-offload: on
tx-tcp-segmentation: on [fixed]
tx-tcp-ecn-segmentation: off [fixed]
tx-tcp6-segmentation: off [fixed]
udp-fragmentation-offload: off [fixed]
generic-segmentation-offload: on
generic-receive-offload: on
large-receive-offload: off [fixed]
rx-vlan-offload: off [fixed]
tx-vlan-offload: off [fixed]
ntuple-filters: off [fixed]
receive-hashing: off [fixed]
highdma: off [fixed]
rx-vlan-filter: off [fixed]
vlan-challenged: off [fixed]
tx-lockless: off [fixed]
netns-local: off [fixed]
tx-gso-robust: off [fixed]
tx-fcoe-segmentation: off [fixed]
tx-gre-segmentation: off [fixed]
tx-ipip-segmentation: off [fixed]
tx-sit-segmentation: off [fixed]
tx-udp_tnl-segmentation: off [fixed]
tx-mpls-segmentation: off [fixed]
fcoe-mtu: off [fixed]
tx-nocache-copy: off
loopback: off [fixed]
rx-fcs: off [fixed]
rx-all: off [fixed]
tx-vlan-stag-hw-insert: off [fixed]
rx-vlan-stag-hw-parse: off [fixed]
rx-vlan-stag-filter: off [fixed]
l2-fwd-offload: off [fixed]
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org

[opencontrail-dev] Discovery fix in 2.21.x

2016-03-15 Thread Foucault de Bonneval 
Ho,

Could you open bug https://launchpad.net/bugs/1534342 please ?

So we could get some context ?

Thanks.
Foucault
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org

[opencontrail-dev] Review : Restore user defined RT when schema initialized

2016-03-07 Thread Foucault de Bonneval 
Hi all,


Sachin, could you take a look at Edouard's proposition on saving /
restoring the asymmetrical RT in case of schema restart please.

https://review.opencontrail.org/#/c/17822/

This feature is very important for us as we are using RT in import / export
to export virtual networks in Hub & Spoke to external VPN.
And the problem is that we have to re-provision all RT after every schema
restart.

Thanks,
Foucault
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org

[opencontrail-dev] Contrail - Heat fix proposal

2015-12-02 Thread Foucault de Bonneval 
Hello all;

Could someone review this two proposals from Sylvain to fix a couple of
issues with Heat ?
 - https://review.opencontrail.org/#/c/13862/
 - https://review.opencontrail.org/#/c/13863/


Thanks,
Foucault
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org

[opencontrail-dev] Issues with Broadcom BCM57810s and Ubuntu 14.04

2015-10-05 Thread Foucault de Bonneval 
Hi all,

Sorry, it is not an Opencontrail subject, but I know there are some system
architects around :D

We have a huge issue trying to get Broadcom BCM57810s up on our
future compute nodes (DELL R630) + Ubuntu 14.04.

Does anyone has this configuration running ? And how did you get it working
?

Thanks,
Foucault
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org

Re: [opencontrail-dev] Issues with Broadcom BCM57810s and Ubuntu 14.04

2015-10-05 Thread Foucault de Bonneval 
 with this value; 0: HW
default; -1: Force disable EEE.
parm:   tx_switching: Enable tx-switching (uint)
parm:   tunnel_mode:Set GRE tunnel mode: 0 - NONE; 1 - VXLAN;
2 - GRE (uint)
parm:   gre_tunnel_type:uint
parm:   gre_tunnel_mode:Set GRE tunnel type: 1 - L2GRE_TUNNEL;
 2 - IPGRE_TUNNEL
parm:   vxlan_dst_port:Set VXLAN destination port (uint)



2015-10-05 18:50 GMT+02:00 Rajagopalan Sivaramakrishnan <r...@juniper.net>:

> Hi Foucault,
> We did have Broadcom NICs working a while back. What is the issue you
> are hitting? Are you seeing bad checksums on the wire?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Raja
>
> From: Dev <dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org> on behalf of Foucault de
> Bonneval <fouca...@thaumiers.com>
> Date: Monday, October 5, 2015 at 8:18 AM
> To: "dev@lists.opencontrail.org" <dev@lists.opencontrail.org>
> Subject: [opencontrail-dev] Issues with Broadcom BCM57810s and Ubuntu
> 14.04
>
> Hi all,
>
> Sorry, it is not an Opencontrail subject, but I know there are some system
> architects around :D
>
> We have a huge issue trying to get Broadcom BCM57810s up on our
> future compute nodes (DELL R630) + Ubuntu 14.04.
>
> Does anyone has this configuration running ? And how did you get it
> working ?
>
> Thanks,
> Foucault
>
>
>
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org

Re: [opencontrail-dev] New core developer

2015-07-29 Thread Foucault de Bonneval 
Congrats Sylvain 
Le 29 juil. 2015 23:07, Pedro Marques ro...@juniper.net a écrit :

 We’ve added Sylvain Afchain to the approver list for the
 contrail-controller repository. Sylvain can now review and approve changes
 on master. Released branches require approval from a release manager (as
 well as review from a  developer).

 Sylvain has made significant contributions across multiple modules of
 software (neutron-plugin, vrouter-agent,  schema-transformer, LBaaS,
 source-nat, etc...) and has a system wide view of the opencontrail software
 both from a development perspective and operations. We greatly appreciate
 his contributions to the project.

 thanks,
   Pedro.
 ___
 Dev mailing list
 Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
 http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org

___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org

Re: [opencontrail-dev] LBaaS limitation - binding multiple ports (80-443)

2015-07-15 Thread Foucault de Bonneval 
Thanks Pedro,

I'll ask Babu to take a look tomorrow.

Foucault
Le 15 juil. 2015 19:49, Pedro Marques ro...@juniper.net a écrit :

  Foucault,
 For the existing LBaaS v1 API, it seems to me that the best option is the
 one you propose:
   - Automatically add a redirect when the protocol is HTTPS so that 80
 redirects to 443 (and potentially 8080 to 8143).
   - We should have this behavior be determined by a configuration option
 in contrail-vrouter-agent.conf.

  The LBaaS v2 API introduces the concept of a listener object (i.e. a
 front-end port) such that there can be multiple ports per load-balancer
 object. Once we add support for the v2 API this can be controlled
 explicitly.

 Pedro.

   On Jul 15, 2015, at 10:21 AM, Foucault de Bonneval 
 fouca...@thaumiers.com wrote:

  Hi all,

  I have a use case that seems difficult to address with actual LBaaS
 implementation.
 First of all, this is a limitation from Neutron and LBaaS implementation
 is based on it.

  My use case is this one :
 * I would like my web users to always get in HTTPS
 * my website is at http(s)://www.me.com

  But when I want to create my LB, i create a
  * lb-pool
  * lb-vip
  * members
 lb-pool and lb-vip can manage only one of --protocol {TCP,HTTP,HTTPS}

  I cannot get the same VIP (an so floating-ip) to listen both tcp/80 and
 tcp/443

  So I won't be able to redirect from http://www.me.com/ =
 https://www.me.com/

  Does anyone have a native workaround about this issue ?



  I was thinking, as Openstack community is not talking a lot about this
 point that we could add a case in Opencontrail vrouter/config/lbaas stack :
 - when a user asks for a tcp/443 lb-pool, lb-vip
 - automatically provision a tcp/80 passthrough in HAproxy

  Based on the assumption that someone who does tcp/443 passthrough have a
 strong intention to do 80 - 443 redirection.

  What do you think of this (dirty) solution ?
 I can file a launchpad bug and get someone of my team to work on it if
 some of you agree on it.

  Thanks,
 Foucault
  ___
 Dev mailing list
 Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
 http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org



___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org

[opencontrail-dev] 2.20 Kafka

2015-06-16 Thread Foucault de Bonneval 
Hi all,

Is Kafka a strong dependency for 2.2 deployements ?

If yes, which component is it tight to ?

Thx,
Foucault
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org