[opnfv-tech-discuss] Summary of Weekly Technical Community Discussion Thursday Feb 16

[HU, BIN]

Hello community,



We had a very good discussion today Thursday Feb 16th. Thank you all for 
participation and contribution.



For details, please refer to the meeting minutes page [1], which includes 
attendees list and IRC log [2].



In next week (Feb 23rd), we will discuss 2 new project proposals:

* Bamboo: https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/bamboo/Bamboo+Project+Proposal

* VINA: https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/vina/VINA+Project+Proposal



Then on March 2nd, we will continue to discuss:

-  DevOps/Continuous Delivery Release Model and How Scenario Descriptor 
(scenario 
consolidation<https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/INF/Scenario+Consolidation>) can 
enable/support it

-  Cross-Community CI Process (which is also related to Continuous 
Delivery)

-  Milestone Exception 
Process<https://wiki.opnfv.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=8690432>

-  E Release Plan<https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/SWREL/E-River>

-  NANO WG Update if time permits



Thanks

Bin



[1] https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/PROJ/tc+minutes+20170216

[2] 
http://meetbot.opnfv.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2017/opnfv-meeting.2017-02-16-14.01.html

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

[opnfv-tech-discuss] Add license information for files without them

[gang chi]

Hi,

I think most of team has received mail from Ray who told me there are over
hundred files without License in Compass4nfv repo. I think some team may
have same issue with me.
so I share my script to generate license header for OPNFV repos.

https://github.com/Justin-chi/Lab/blob/master/add_license.sh

Here is result of the script: https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/28885/

Hope it will works for you.

Regards
Justin
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

[opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting 2/17

[Tianhongbo]

BEGIN:VCALENDAR
METHOD:REQUEST
PRODID:Microsoft Exchange Server 2010
VERSION:2.0
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:China Standard Time
BEGIN:STANDARD
DTSTART:16010101T00
TZOFFSETFROM:+0800
TZOFFSETTO:+0800
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
DTSTART:16010101T00
TZOFFSETFROM:+0800
TZOFFSETTO:+0800
END:DAYLIGHT
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
ORGANIZER;CN=Tianhongbo:MAILTO:hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN='TECH-DISC
 USS OPNFV':MAILTO:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN='Christoph
 er Price':MAILTO:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN='Dave Near
 y':MAILTO:dne...@redhat.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN='marko.a.k
 ui...@nokia.com':MAILTO:marko.a.kui...@nokia.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN="'Rautakump
 u, Mika (Nokia - FI/Espoo)'":MAILTO:mika.rautaku...@nokia.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN='sheng-ann
 .y...@ericsson.com':MAILTO:sheng-ann...@ericsson.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN='yangjiany
 j...@chinamobile.com':MAILTO:yangjian...@chinamobile.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN='zhang.jun
 3...@zte.com.cn':MAILTO:zhang.ju...@zte.com.cn
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN="'HU, BIN'":
 MAILTO:bh5...@att.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN='lma@biigr
 oup.cn':MAILTO:l...@biigroup.cn
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN='Tetsuya N
 akamura':MAILTO:t.nakam...@cablelabs.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=Wenjing Ch
 u:MAILTO:wenjing@huawei.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=Christophe
 r Donley (Chris):MAILTO:christopher.don...@huawei.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN='Jose Laus
 uch':MAILTO:jose.laus...@ericsson.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=Lijun (Mat
 thew):MAILTO:matthew.li...@huawei.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=OPT-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN="'Gokhale, 
 Gandhar P'":MAILTO:gandhar.gokh...@intel.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=OPT-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN="'Kedalagud
 de, Meghashree Dattatri'":MAILTO:meghashree.dattatri.kedalagu...@intel.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=OPT-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN='Maria Toe
 roe':MAILTO:maria.toe...@ericsson.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=OPT-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN="'Bernier, 
 Daniel'":MAILTO:daniel.bern...@bell.ca
ATTENDEE;ROLE=OPT-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN='Lawrence 
 Lamers':MAILTO:ljlam...@vmware.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=OPT-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN="'Seiler, G
 lenn'":MAILTO:glenn.sei...@windriver.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=OPT-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN='Tim Irnic
 h':MAILTO:tim.irn...@ericsson.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=OPT-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=xudan (N):
 MAILTO:xuda...@huawei.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=OPT-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=Canio Cill
 is:MAILTO:canio.cil...@de.ibm.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=OPT-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=Georg Kunz
 :MAILTO:georg.k...@ericsson.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=OPT-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN="Browne, Jo
 hn J":MAILTO:john.j.bro...@intel.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=OPT-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN="GUPTA, ALO
 K":MAILTO:ag1...@att.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=OPT-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=rgrigar@li
 nuxfoundation.org:MAILTO:rgri...@linuxfoundation.org
DESCRIPTION;LANGUAGE=zh-CN:时间: 2017年2月17日星期五 22:00-23:00(UT
 C+08:00)北京，重庆，香港特别行政区，乌鲁木齐。\n\n注
 意: 以上 GMT 时差并不反映夏令时调整。\n\n*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
 *\n\nHi all:\n\nWelcome to join the dovetail weekly meeting\n\nThe agenda 
 for this week:\n\n1）dovetail development plan（ milestone and schedule
 ）-wenjing\n2）update on jira with a "test" and create a jira ticket
  on further discussion---bryan\n3）Test case run results history info gat
 hering and display - Matthew\n4）update of authentication for dovetail to
 ol --leo\n5）jenkins jobs reqirement for dovetail---uli from infr
 a group\n6）Other open issues: https://etherpad.opnfv.org/p/collabrationo
 fdovetail\n\nIf you have other topics for the agenda\, do not hesitate to 
 let us know.\n\nMeeting information:\n\n•   Weekly on Friday at 1400
 -1500 UTC\n•   Gotomeeting Access\n•   https://global.gotomeet
 ing.com/join/969604901\n•   United States +1 (224) 501-3318\n•
Access Code: 458-547-813\n•   IRC channel\n•   #opnfv-meeti
 ng@ Freenode (Web Chat)\n•   For more detail\, please refer to :\n
 •   https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail\n\nBest Regards\n\nhongb
 o\n\n\n
SUMMARY;LANGUAGE=zh-CN:[dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting  2/17
DTSTART;TZID=China Standard 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting 2/17

[Wenjing Chu]

Hi hongbo
Can we swap the order so that the Danube based CVP plan is discussed first as 
it may take most of time? Thanks.

Wenjing


From: Tianhongbo
To: 'TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV'; 'Christopher Price'; 'Dave Neary'; 
'marko.a.kui...@nokia.com'; 'Rautakumpu, Mika (Nokia - FI/Espoo)'; 
'sheng-ann...@ericsson.com'; 'yangjian...@chinamobile.com'; 
'zhang.ju...@zte.com.cn'; 'HU, BIN'; 'l...@biigroup.cn'; 'Tetsuya Nakamura'; 
Wenjing Chu; Christopher Donley (Chris); 'Jose Lausuch'; Lijun (Matthew);
Subject: [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting 2/17
Time: 2017-02-15 17:07:02


时间: 2017年2月17日星期五 22:00-23:00(UTC+08:00)北京，重庆，香港特别行政区，乌鲁木齐。

注意: 以上 GMT 时差并不反映夏令时调整。

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Hi all:

Welcome to join the dovetail weekly meeting

The agenda for this week:

1）update on jira with a "test" and create a jira ticket on further 
discussion---bryan
2）Test case run results history info gathering and display - Matthew
3）update of authentication for dovetail tool --leo
4）dovetail development plan（ milestone and schedule）-wenjing
5）Other open issues: https://etherpad.opnfv.org/p/collabrationofdovetail

If you have other topics for the agenda, do not hesitate to let us know.

Meeting information:


  *   Weekly on Friday at 1400-1500 UTC
  *   Gotomeeting Access
  *   https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/969604901
  *   United States +1 (224) 501-3318
  *   Access Code: 458-547-813
  *   IRC channel
  *   #opnfv-meeting@ Freenode (Web Chat)
  *   For more detail, please refer to :
  *   https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail


Best Regards

hongbo


___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [opnfvdocs] Documentation update for Danube release

[Stuart Mackie]

Hi Sofia

I am attempting to check out the docs toolchain.

There’s an instruction in 1.8.1 of 
http://artifacts.opnfv.org/opnfvdocs/docs/how-to-use-docs/documentation-example.html
 that you have to submit a patch for jjb/opnfv/opnfv-docs.yml.

Where is this file?

Thanks

Stuart
-914 886 2534

From:  on behalf of Sofia Wallin 

Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 10:40 AM
To: "TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV (opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org)" 
, "opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org" 

Subject: Re: [opnfv-project-leads] [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfvdocs] 
Documentation update for Danube release

Here is an example based on SFC for mapping existing documents to the new 
structure,
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1_PszNevu1J7KK_46p8K9L4y5AjbnDWnXfsxQN-SmETI/edit#slide=id.g20d735f830_0_0

Thanks Brady!

BR,
Sofia

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Sofia Wallin
Sent: den 7 februari 2017 14:26
To: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV (opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org) 
; opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfvdocs] Documentation update for Danube 
release

To all projects that plans to contribute with documentation to the Danube 
release.

Hi,
As a reminder that documentation is part of the release even this time, 
following email contains some useful information and links.

Since we are moving to read the docs 
(NOTE: this page is still work in progress) for the Danube release some 
structural changes has been made. Please have a look at the wiki page linked 
below to make sure that you store your documentation according to directives.

Wiki
Information on general documentation handling can be found 
here

Milestones relevant for documentation is MS6 and MS10.
MS6 17/2 – Preliminary documentation completed
Documentation outlines or placeholders committed to repo for all project and 
release documentation
MS10 24/3 – Documentation completed
All project and release documentation reviewed and approved.

Since we still haven’t manage to establish or communicate a review process for 
release related documentation it is important to always add one or two members 
from the docs project as reviewer on documentation related additions or changes.

Everyone is welcome to join the docs 
meeting held every second 
week.

Regards,
Sofia
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [release] E-release schedule

[Randy Levensalor]

Frank, +1 on your suggestions.
David, I applaud your effort to reduce the overhead for the community.

TL;DR Today I spend > 80% of my time getting OPNFV to run and I’d prefer to 
spend > 80% of my time running VNFs on OPNFV.

As a frequent user, use case 1 that Frank defined aligns with my primary goal 
for OPNFV.  “(1) User/consumer of a readily integrated NFV stack.”  The need 
for a working platform currently outweigh the need for additional features.  I 
suspect that as the platform and our use cases mature, some of the incremental 
features will become a higher priority.

With the one release every 6 months, I fear that I would have to carry a large 
patch set or something to have a functioning platform.

To add a little context to my reservations about the reduced number of 
releases, I’d like to share my experience below as an example of how the 
release cycle can impact users.  Please don’t read this as a complaint or 
detracting from the project’s progress and achievement.  The fact that we can 
run a 100% open source VIM and NFVI with a very limited staff is a minor 
miracle.  There may some other clever solutions.  Fatih and Jack have mentions 
some options that could help.

With the Arno, Brahmaputra and Colorado releases we would start downloading 
release candidates and kick the tires.  We try and look at multiple installers, 
but most of our time has been spent on Apex.

The RC installs almost never work.  About 1/3rd of these failures are due to 
hardware or user error that are not easy to debug.  For instance, a bad NIC on 
a compute node can cause the controller install to fail.  The rest are defects 
or documentation issues.

The1.0 release goes better. I can usually get a few patches into the first 
release to resolve critical issue and the community is working day and night to 
get the release out the door.

By the 2.0 release, most of the defects are fixed.  There are inevitably a few 
issues that take more than a month to root cause.  Some of these more 
challenging defects, which are often related to platform stability, cannot be 
fixed until the next release.  Resources are already focused on adding new 
features and do not have the time nor desire to backport these fixes.

The longest that I have kept an OPNFV Colorado instance running was 32 days.  
That required the Colorado 3.0 release, manually applying a few patches that 
will be in Danube and limiting the type activities.

Now we are preparing to kick the tires on Danube continue with difficulties 
keeping our lab running long enough to deploy an interesting use case.  In the 
meantime, we will continue to reinstall at least once a month and look forward 
to the Danube release.


Randy Levensalor | r.levensa...@cablelabs.com
CableLabs® | o 303.661.3455 | c 970.214.1316


From:  on behalf of "Frank 
Brockners (fbrockne)" 
Date: Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 1:36 AM
To: David McBride , OPNFV Tech Discussion 
, "opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org" 

Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [release] E-release schedule

David,

thanks for the summary. Let’s remind ourselves, that in OPNFV we’re really 
trying to meet the needs of two different audiences: (1) User/consumer of a 
readily integrated NFV stack – as well as marketing operations (2) 
Developer/tester of an NFV stack. Audience #1 is mostly interested in 
stability, even if that means that things are released a little later (i.e. you 
build on long released components). Audience #2 is pushing the envelope and 
requires the ability to evolve/develop and integrate the latest set of 
components; once working they desire to release things to allow others to build 
on top; and move on/start over.

The current 1.0/2.0/3.0 was an effort to meet the needs of both audiences, i.e.

· Have a “major” release.

· Allow developers to release scenarios when they are ready and evolve, 
without too much of a maintenance burden.
This is also why we typically did not fix component versions for a release, but 
said: Based or ODL Boron or later.

I agree that releases are not free – especially the “major” release, because it 
comes with significant documentation and coordination needs. That said, it is 
mostly the “major” release with a lot of central coordination which creates 
efforts. Labeling and pushing an updated version of test results and 
documentation is relatively low effort – and can even be done by a scenario 
team. It does not even require central coordination. And our pipeline is now 
mature enough to do these things with low/moderate overhead.

So rather than move back in history and go back to a single release every 6 
months, which will make OPNFV a very inflexible organization for developers, I 
would strongly suggest that we rather consider evolving the current release 
process. IMHO we should 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [OVN4NFV] Agenda for kickoff meeting

[Vikram Dham]

Thanks Russell & Dan for the PTG heads up. Will schedule something for the week 
after.

Hi John,

Thanks for bringing up SFC - it's pretty important. Will add it to the agenda.

Thanks,

Vikram


> On Feb 16, 2017, at 2:38 PM, John McDowall  
> wrote:
> 
> Vikram,
>  
> As you know I have been working of patches for OVS/OVN to support service 
> chaining. They are in the process of being reviewed by the OVS/OVN team – if 
> this is of interest would be happy to give an update. Note I will be out 
> Mon/Tue/Thurs of next week.
>  
> Regards
>  
> John
>  
> From: Vikram Dham 
> Date: Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 11:49 AM
> To: "rbry...@redhat.com" , "dra...@redhat.com" 
> , "wenjing@huawei.com" , 
> "zhao.j...@zte.com.cn" , "li.weim...@zte.com.cn" 
> , "muralir...@gmail.com" , 
> "gal.sa...@gmail.com" , John McDowall 
> , "mest...@mestery.com" 
> , "denglin...@chinamobile.com" 
> 
> Cc: "tapio.tallg...@nokia.com" , 
> "tro...@redhat.com" , "ulrich.kle...@huawei.com" 
> , "rp...@linuxfoundation.org" 
> , "dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org" 
> , "opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org" 
> 
> Subject: [OVN4NFV] Agenda for kickoff meeting
>  
> Hi All, 
>  
> As already discussed with some of you last week, we are starting work on 
> ovn4nfv - https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/PROJ/Ovn4nfv 
> 
>  
>  
>  OVN has since come a long way and it would be good to provide it as another 
> SDN option for OPNFV.
>  
> I will be scheduling a kickoff meeting for ovn4nfv sometime next week - 
> calendar invite will follow. Agenda so far:
>  
> 1. Current state of OVN (Russell - Can you or someone from your team help 
> with this?) and long term requirements for OPNFV (Vikram)
> 2. Installers which can use OVN. Engage with more installer projects.
> 3. Documentation for using OVN
> 4. OVN test cases which testing projects can leverage
> 5. Potential OVN deployments in OPNFV labs
>  
> Let me know if you would like to add anything else to it.
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Vikram Dham 
> 
> 

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [OVN4NFV] Agenda for kickoff meeting

[John McDowall]

Vikram,

As you know I have been working of patches for OVS/OVN to support service 
chaining. They are in the process of being reviewed by the OVS/OVN team – if 
this is of interest would be happy to give an update. Note I will be out 
Mon/Tue/Thurs of next week.

Regards

John

From: Vikram Dham 
Date: Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 11:49 AM
To: "rbry...@redhat.com" , "dra...@redhat.com" 
, "wenjing@huawei.com" , 
"zhao.j...@zte.com.cn" , "li.weim...@zte.com.cn" 
, "muralir...@gmail.com" , 
"gal.sa...@gmail.com" , John McDowall 
, "mest...@mestery.com" , 
"denglin...@chinamobile.com" 
Cc: "tapio.tallg...@nokia.com" , "tro...@redhat.com" 
, "ulrich.kle...@huawei.com" , 
"rp...@linuxfoundation.org" , 
"dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org" , 
"opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org" 
Subject: [OVN4NFV] Agenda for kickoff meeting

Hi All,

As already discussed with some of you last week, we are starting work on 
ovn4nfv - 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/PROJ/Ovn4nfv

 OVN has since come a long way and it would be good to provide it as another 
SDN option for OPNFV.

I will be scheduling a kickoff meeting for ovn4nfv sometime next week - 
calendar invite will follow. Agenda so far:

1. Current state of OVN (Russell - Can you or someone from your team help with 
this?) and long term requirements for OPNFV (Vikram)
2. Installers which can use OVN. Engage with more installer projects.
3. Documentation for using OVN
4. OVN test cases which testing projects can leverage
5. Potential OVN deployments in OPNFV labs

Let me know if you would like to add anything else to it.

Thanks,

Vikram Dham


___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [SFC] Collecting current issues

[Jose Lausuch]

+Manuel, George


From: Michael Polenchuk [mailto:mpolenc...@mirantis.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 13:58 PM
To: Jose Lausuch
Cc: Juan Vidal ALLENDE; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [SFC] Collecting current issues

I've got only the following flows on the compute node (all instance(s) packets 
is being dropped):

# ovs-ofctl dump-flows -OOpenFlow13 br-int
OFPST_FLOW reply (OF1.3) (xid=0x2):
 cookie=0x0, duration=36399.647s, table=0, n_packets=0, n_bytes=0, 
dl_type=0x88cc actions=CONTROLLER:65535
 cookie=0x0, duration=36399.647s, table=0, n_packets=180, n_bytes=27686, 
priority=6 actions=goto_table:1
 cookie=0x0, duration=36399.648s, table=1, n_packets=180, n_bytes=27686, 
priority=0 actions=goto_table:11
 cookie=0x0, duration=36399.656s, table=11, n_packets=180, n_bytes=27686, 
priority=0 actions=goto_table:21
 cookie=0x0, duration=36399.652s, table=21, n_packets=180, n_bytes=27686, 
priority=0 actions=goto_table:31
 cookie=0x0, duration=36399.648s, table=31, n_packets=180, n_bytes=27686, 
priority=0 actions=goto_table:41
 cookie=0x0, duration=36399.659s, table=41, n_packets=180, n_bytes=27686, 
priority=0 actions=goto_table:51
 cookie=0x0, duration=36399.653s, table=51, n_packets=180, n_bytes=27686, 
priority=0 actions=goto_table:61
 cookie=0x0, duration=36399.650s, table=61, n_packets=180, n_bytes=27686, 
priority=0 actions=goto_table:71
 cookie=0x0, duration=36399.660s, table=71, n_packets=180, n_bytes=27686, 
priority=0 actions=goto_table:81
 cookie=0x0, duration=36399.654s, table=81, n_packets=180, n_bytes=27686, 
priority=0 actions=goto_table:91
 cookie=0x0, duration=36399.651s, table=91, n_packets=180, n_bytes=27686, 
priority=0 actions=goto_table:101
 cookie=0x0, duration=36399.660s, table=101, n_packets=180, n_bytes=27686, 
priority=0 actions=goto_table:111
 cookie=0x0, duration=36399.655s, table=111, n_packets=180, n_bytes=27686, 
priority=0 actions=drop

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Michael Polenchuk 
> wrote:
Hi,
Definitely need to debug it in details,
but I believe this issue relates to ovs+nsh chains/flows since other scenarios 
pass this test.

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Jose Lausuch 
> wrote:
Hi,

Currently there is a bigger problem which happens in CI:
https://build.opnfv.org/ci/view/functest/job/functest-fuel-baremetal-daily-master/1112/console

The instances can’t get an IP from the dhcp agent.

Adding Michail, who together with me has seen that issue before on fuel and 
sometimes was due to bad POD configuration.

Thanks,
Jose


From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org]
 On Behalf Of Juan Vidal ALLENDE
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 17:03 PM
To: 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [SFC] Collecting current issues

Hello,

As we talked in the weekly meeting, let's compile the current issues that we 
are facing, and try to focus on fixing them to stabilize the test cases. We can 
then add them to JIRA and assign them.

I am currently facing two issues:

1) Floating IPs are not working sometimes. I don't know why this happens, 
because manually I can spawn a VM and manually asign IP to it and works fine 
with the admin user, but I seem to have more problems when using the 'tacker' 
user.

2) Wait for ovs configuration goes too fast. After testing 'ssh blocked' 
subtest, 'http works' subtest usually fails. I noticed that if I add a delay of 
10 seconds after 'wait_for_configuration_changes' function, it works. 
Apparently  it takes some time for the rules to be correctly installed.

Are you guys seeing these bugs as well? Do you have some others?

Regards,
Juan


--
  Michael Polenchuk
  Private Cloud / Mirantis Inc.



--
  Michael Polenchuk
  Private Cloud / Mirantis Inc.
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [SFC] Collecting current issues

[Michael Polenchuk]

I've got only the following flows on the compute node (all instance(s)
packets is being dropped):

# ovs-ofctl dump-flows -OOpenFlow13 br-int
OFPST_FLOW reply (OF1.3) (xid=0x2):
 cookie=0x0, duration=36399.647s, table=0, n_packets=0, n_bytes=0,
dl_type=0x88cc actions=CONTROLLER:65535
 cookie=0x0, duration=36399.647s, table=0, n_packets=180, n_bytes=27686,
priority=6 actions=goto_table:1
 cookie=0x0, duration=36399.648s, table=1, n_packets=180, n_bytes=27686,
priority=0 actions=goto_table:11
 cookie=0x0, duration=36399.656s, table=11, n_packets=180, n_bytes=27686,
priority=0 actions=goto_table:21
 cookie=0x0, duration=36399.652s, table=21, n_packets=180, n_bytes=27686,
priority=0 actions=goto_table:31
 cookie=0x0, duration=36399.648s, table=31, n_packets=180, n_bytes=27686,
priority=0 actions=goto_table:41
 cookie=0x0, duration=36399.659s, table=41, n_packets=180, n_bytes=27686,
priority=0 actions=goto_table:51
 cookie=0x0, duration=36399.653s, table=51, n_packets=180, n_bytes=27686,
priority=0 actions=goto_table:61
 cookie=0x0, duration=36399.650s, table=61, n_packets=180, n_bytes=27686,
priority=0 actions=goto_table:71
 cookie=0x0, duration=36399.660s, table=71, n_packets=180, n_bytes=27686,
priority=0 actions=goto_table:81
 cookie=0x0, duration=36399.654s, table=81, n_packets=180, n_bytes=27686,
priority=0 actions=goto_table:91
 cookie=0x0, duration=36399.651s, table=91, n_packets=180, n_bytes=27686,
priority=0 actions=goto_table:101
 cookie=0x0, duration=36399.660s, table=101, n_packets=180, n_bytes=27686,
priority=0 actions=goto_table:111
 cookie=0x0, duration=36399.655s, table=111, n_packets=180, n_bytes=27686,
priority=0 actions=drop


On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Michael Polenchuk  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Definitely need to debug it in details,
> but I believe this issue relates to ovs+nsh chains/flows since other
> scenarios pass this test.
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Jose Lausuch 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> Currently there is a bigger problem which happens in CI:
>>
>> https://build.opnfv.org/ci/view/functest/job/functest-fuel-
>> baremetal-daily-master/1112/console
>>
>>
>>
>> The instances can’t get an IP from the dhcp agent.
>>
>>
>>
>> Adding Michail, who together with me has seen that issue before on fuel
>> and sometimes was due to bad POD configuration.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jose
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:
>> opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] *On Behalf Of *Juan Vidal
>> ALLENDE
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 15, 2017 17:03 PM
>> *To:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
>> *Subject:* [opnfv-tech-discuss] [SFC] Collecting current issues
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>>
>> As we talked in the weekly meeting, let's compile the current issues that
>> we are facing, and try to focus on fixing them to stabilize the test cases.
>> We can then add them to JIRA and assign them.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am currently facing two issues:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) Floating IPs are not working sometimes. I don't know why this happens,
>> because manually I can spawn a VM and manually asign IP to it and works
>> fine with the admin user, but I seem to have more problems when using the
>> 'tacker' user.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2) Wait for ovs configuration goes too fast. After testing 'ssh blocked'
>> subtest, 'http works' subtest usually fails. I noticed that if I add a
>> delay of 10 seconds after 'wait_for_configuration_changes' function, it
>> works. Apparently  it takes some time for the rules to be correctly
>> installed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Are you guys seeing these bugs as well? Do you have some others?
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Juan
>>
>
>
>
> --
>   Michael Polenchuk
>   Private Cloud / Mirantis Inc.
>



-- 
  Michael Polenchuk
  Private Cloud / Mirantis Inc.
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [release] E-release schedule

[Frank Brockners (fbrockne)]

David,

thanks for the summary. Let’s remind ourselves, that in OPNFV we’re really 
trying to meet the needs of two different audiences: (1) User/consumer of a 
readily integrated NFV stack – as well as marketing operations (2) 
Developer/tester of an NFV stack. Audience #1 is mostly interested in 
stability, even if that means that things are released a little later (i.e. you 
build on long released components). Audience #2 is pushing the envelope and 
requires the ability to evolve/develop and integrate the latest set of 
components; once working they desire to release things to allow others to build 
on top; and move on/start over.

The current 1.0/2.0/3.0 was an effort to meet the needs of both audiences, i.e.

·   Have a “major” release.

·   Allow developers to release scenarios when they are ready and evolve, 
without too much of a maintenance burden.
This is also why we typically did not fix component versions for a release, but 
said: Based or ODL Boron or later.

I agree that releases are not free – especially the “major” release, because it 
comes with significant documentation and coordination needs. That said, it is 
mostly the “major” release with a lot of central coordination which creates 
efforts. Labeling and pushing an updated version of test results and 
documentation is relatively low effort – and can even be done by a scenario 
team. It does not even require central coordination. And our pipeline is now 
mature enough to do these things with low/moderate overhead.

So rather than move back in history and go back to a single release every 6 
months, which will make OPNFV a very inflexible organization for developers, I 
would strongly suggest that we rather consider evolving the current release 
process. IMHO we should be ready to have monthly micro-releases (scenario 
owners publish those scenarios which are “ready”, i.e. have docs ready and pass 
testing), and every 6 months we do a macro-release (with marketing/press 
announcement) which includes the set of scenarios which are “ready” by then. 
Macro-releases can be coupled to certain upstream component versions (as 
selection criteria for what is in/out of a macro release) – whereas 
micro-release would enjoy complete freedom.

Thoughts?

Thanks, Frank



From: David McBride [mailto:dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org]
Sent: Mittwoch, 15. Februar 2017 20:26
To: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV ; 
opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org
Cc: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) ; Tapio Tallgren 

Subject: [release] E-release schedule

Greetings,

During the TSC call, yesterday, I took an action to start an email discussion 
about the schedule for the 
E-release.

Specifically, I suggested that we just plan for a single release, rather than 
three releases, as we've done in the past.  Then, when the release date 
approaches, we evaluate whether we need a point release, then schedule it at 
that time.

Why?

  *   Scheduling three releases has created a lot of confusion with the project 
teams  The purpose of the three releases is to give project teams time to debug 
and fix scenarios that are not ready for 1.0.  They are not separate 
development timelines with separate release milestones.  However, many believe 
that it isn't necessary to meet release milestones, because they will simply 
shift to the 2.0 or 3.0 release.
  *   In the past two releases, the new content released in 2.0 has been 
minimal.  For example, for Colorado 2.0, just two new scenarios were released.  
Human nature is such that, given the opportunity for a later deadline, many 
will take it.
  *   Releases are not free.  In addition to the overhead required for 
labeling, creating ISOs, and updating documentation, projects that released in 
previous releases, are required to update their code for subsequent releases to 
resolve any issues, even if they weren't intending to do any additional work on 
that major release.  For example, let's say that a project releases in Danube 
1.0, they're satisfied with their effort, so they shift their focus to the 
E-release.  However, changes after 1.0 break their scenario.  So, suddenly, 
they find themselves working on Danube 2.0, even though they aren't releasing 
any new scenarios. This process repeats for Danube 3.0.
During the TSC call, it was suggested that a 2.0 or 3.0 release provides an 
opportunity to integrate a late release of a major upstream component (e.g. 
ODL).  However, this is counter to our previous agreement not to change major 
upstream components after the 1.0 release.  Unfortunately, this happened in 
Colorado and created significant disruption, including a slip in the 2.0 
release.

Per our discussion on Tuesday, I've created a wiki 
page to 
capture pros and cons of various schedule options.  Feel free to edit it and 
add your 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [SFC] Collecting current issues

[Michael Polenchuk]

Hi,

Definitely need to debug it in details,
but I believe this issue relates to ovs+nsh chains/flows since other
scenarios pass this test.

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Jose Lausuch 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> Currently there is a bigger problem which happens in CI:
>
> https://build.opnfv.org/ci/view/functest/job/functest-
> fuel-baremetal-daily-master/1112/console
>
>
>
> The instances can’t get an IP from the dhcp agent.
>
>
>
> Adding Michail, who together with me has seen that issue before on fuel
> and sometimes was due to bad POD configuration.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jose
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:
> opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] *On Behalf Of *Juan Vidal
> ALLENDE
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 15, 2017 17:03 PM
> *To:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> *Subject:* [opnfv-tech-discuss] [SFC] Collecting current issues
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> As we talked in the weekly meeting, let's compile the current issues that
> we are facing, and try to focus on fixing them to stabilize the test cases.
> We can then add them to JIRA and assign them.
>
>
>
> I am currently facing two issues:
>
>
>
> 1) Floating IPs are not working sometimes. I don't know why this happens,
> because manually I can spawn a VM and manually asign IP to it and works
> fine with the admin user, but I seem to have more problems when using the
> 'tacker' user.
>
>
>
> 2) Wait for ovs configuration goes too fast. After testing 'ssh blocked'
> subtest, 'http works' subtest usually fails. I noticed that if I add a
> delay of 10 seconds after 'wait_for_configuration_changes' function, it
> works. Apparently  it takes some time for the rules to be correctly
> installed.
>
>
>
> Are you guys seeing these bugs as well? Do you have some others?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Juan
>



-- 
  Michael Polenchuk
  Private Cloud / Mirantis Inc.
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

[opnfv-tech-discuss] [[functest] back of multsite test

[joehuang]

Hello,

Kingbird test was removed from Functest due to requirements conflict, and there 
is one suggestion to use venv to install kingbird tempest test cases into 
Functest, for tempest plugin discovery.

https://jira.opnfv.org/browse/FUNCTEST-635

Would like to know whether it's possible to fix it in D release?

The multisite CI environment is ready : build.opnfv.org/ci/view/multisite/

Best Regards
Chaoyi Huang (joehuang)
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss