Re: [opencontrail-dev] Contrailen 171 - vrouter vifdump mirroring enhancement for bond-slave-links

[CARVER, PAUL]

Rajagopalan Sivaramakrishnan wrote:


>>>The 4.1 dates are not finalized yet, but I think the code-complete date will 
>>>be in June/July. The blueprints will need

>>>to be approved before that, which should not be a problem for this feature. 
>>>FYI, we will be moving to DPDK 17.02

>>>in 4.1, so that might affect your changes.



Is there a way to tell which DPDK version is in use at any given time in the 
vRouter repo? I see that the contrail-dpdk repo has 2.1 and 1702 branches 
listed as active: https://github.com/Juniper/contrail-dpdk/branches



But the vRouter repo doesn’t even have a 4.0 branch yet despite 4.0 being very 
close to release. Does that mean that master is still on 2.1 and no 1702 work 
has started yet?



Where would I look to see what branch of the contrail-dpdk repo is used with 
what branch of the contrail-vrouter repo?


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

[opencontrail-dev] Elastic Flow Distributor

[CARVER, PAUL]

In DPDK 1702 Intel added support for Elastic Flow Distributor which might be 
able to boost Contrail vRouter performance.

When Contrail upgrades from DPDK 2.1 to 1702 or later it would be worth looking 
at adding support. Has anyone looked at EFD? If not I can get some more 
information on it from some of my contacts.

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

Re: [opencontrail-dev] Vrouter UT compilation on master branch

[CARVER, PAUL]

Which set of instructions have you been following on the build process? If 
those packages aren't listed in the instructions as a prereq step then you 
should propose a change to add them.

From: Dev [mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org] On Behalf Of Deepak Tiwari
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 07:28
To: Rajagopalan Sivaramakrishnan ; dev@lists.opencontrail.org
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] Vrouter UT compilation on master branch


Hi Raja,



Yes you are correct. Actually we hadn't installed following packages--



sudo apt-get install libnl-3-dev libnl-genl-3-dev



Due to this we had to remove "nl-3" and "nl-genl-3" library linkings from some 
SConscript/Makefiles. But after installing above packages, UT is compiling 
successfully


Br, Deepak


From: Rajagopalan Sivaramakrishnan >
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 3:18:57 AM
To: Deepak Tiwari; dev@lists.opencontrail.org
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] Vrouter UT compilation on master branch


Hi Deepak,

It should build and also run the unit tests if you are building DPDK 
vrouter. Please see the following in vrouter/dpdk/SConscript



vtest = Command(target = "all_tests.log",

source = "../utils/vtest/vtest",

action =

"./vrouter/utils/vtest/all_tests_run"

+ " -b " + Dir(env['TOP']).abspath

+ " -x vrouter/utils/vtest/tests"

+ " -l $TARGET"

)

Depends(vtest, dpdk_vrouter)



DPDK vrouter should be built if the third_party/dpdk directory exists (please 
see the following in vrouter/SConscript)



dpdk_exists = os.path.isdir('../third_party/dpdk')



Raja



From: Dev 
> 
on behalf of Deepak Tiwari 
>
Date: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 2:22 AM
To: "dev@lists.opencontrail.org" 
>
Subject: [opencontrail-dev] Vrouter UT compilation on master branch



Hello,



I was exploring the UT framework for vrouter. It seems currently the UT binary 
(i.e. vtest) doesn't get compiled. I had to do few changes here and there 
(mainly in SConscipt file and Makefiles) to get vtest binary compiled.



Is it correct that on trunk branch vrouter UT is not compilable? Or did I miss 
anything? I am using following command to compile and start the UT



==> sudo scons vrouter "--opt=debug"



Br, Deepak



"DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Aricent and is intended solely for 
the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged or 
confidential information and should not be circulated or used for any purpose 
other than for what it is intended. If you have received this message in error, 
please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the intended 
recipient, you are notified that you are strictly prohibited from using, 
copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this message. Aricent accepts 
no responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of the information 
transmitted by this email including damage from virus."
"DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Aricent and is intended solely for 
the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged or 
confidential information and should not be circulated or used for any purpose 
other than for what it is intended. If you have received this message in error, 
please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the intended 
recipient, you are notified that you are strictly prohibited from using, 
copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this message. Aricent accepts 
no responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of the information 
transmitted by this email including damage from virus."
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org

Re: [opencontrail-dev] OpenContrail Quick Start

[CARVER, PAUL]

You’re right that “getting started” documentation is a major area for 
improvement.

We’ve got a new documentation repository where I hope we will be able to start 
consolidating the best information and weeding out the older and less accurate 
information, but currently it’s just a skeleton.

https://review.opencontrail.org/34136

If you’ve kept good notes on what worked and what didn’t we would love to have 
your help in cleaning up and consolidating the stuff that worked.

From: Dev [mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org] On Behalf Of Abhijit 
Gadgil
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 10:39
To: dev@lists.opencontrail.org
Subject: [opencontrail-dev] OpenContrail Quick Start

Dear All,
I am quite new to OpenContrail, but not so much to OpenStack or fiddling around 
vrtual networking in general. I am trying to bring up a single node 
OpenContrail. Something along the lines of `devstack`. Unfortunately, the 
documentation seems to be all over the place, for instance the Quick Start 
Guide looks quite dated and hard to follow.
It took me a bit of a time to actually find out that there's a repo called 
`contrail-installer` that does something along the lines of what I want to do. 
I had a few troubles getting around the issues to make it run successfully on 
Ubuntu 16.04 (clearly the support doesn't exist, and looks like this project is 
not actively maintained), I have not yet completely gone past that issue - but 
using another approach I followed I am able to build the repository(ies).
After stumbling upon the following document -

http://juniper.github.io/contrail-vnc/README.html
I managed to eventually get everything to build (though the approach I followed 
was inspired from what is mentioned here, but not exactly those instructions). 
For instance, when you build everything - it starts with web-core which I am 
not so much interested at the moment. I have managed to build the vRouter agent 
and the kernel module. (along with almost everything from the 
contrail-controller repo).
I have a couple of questions -
1. Was I really looking at right places? This seems to be a rather steep 
learning curve for someone working for the first time with OpenContrail.

2. If I am just interested in 'talking to agent somehow' and configuring the 
'vrouter kernel module' to see what the datapath looks like - what should be 
the next logical step? Is it even trivially possible. I haven't looked at some 
of the unit-code tests yet, which I would probably next, but just wanted to 
learn if there's an alternate / better way.
Thanks in advance.
-abhijit

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

Re: [opencontrail-dev] [Users] Opencontrail thirdparty packages install errors.

[CARVER, PAUL]

You have a DNS issue on your machine. “unable to resolve host address 
‘github.com’” means that your machine is failing to lookup github.com. You need 
to have working DNS before you start.

The place where the script breaks is in verifying the MD5 hash on a package 
that the script is trying to download, but it’s the DNS failure that’s 
preventing you from downloading the package in the first place.

From: Users [mailto:users-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org] On Behalf Of 164980 
ktr.cse.13
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 03:23
To: Suresh Kumar S ; dev 
; us...@lists.opencontrail.org
Subject: [Users] Opencontrail thirdparty packages install errors.

Hi,
I am installing opencontrail following this 
documentation,https://sureshkvl.gitbooks.io/opencontrail-tutorial/content/build-and-package-from-source.html.
Ubuntu 14.04(server edition)
Getting error while installing contrail third party packages.
For refrence i am attaching a screenshot.
Please help to rectify the error.

Regards,
Raghav Sachdeva
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org

[opencontrail-dev] CI question "recheck no bug"

[CARVER, PAUL]

I see fairly often that someone posts a "recheck no bug" comment to Gerrit. I 
assume this means that the CI failed for reasons that are unrelated to the 
specific commit and the CI needs to be re-run for that commit. Is there an 
underlying problem that is known? Are there obstacles to getting the root 
problem fixed?

I made some minor spelling and grammar corrections to a spec file and hit 
multiple CI failures. The only file in the commit was a Markdown file so the 
failures just don't make sense. Looking at Jenkins I see things like this:


2017-07-10 04:21:17 Building remotely on 
ci-oc-slave-redhat70-10-84-35-241
 (ci-oc-slave-redhat70 swarm) in workspace 
/home/jenkins/workspace/ci-contrail-controller-systest-redhat70-kilo

2017-07-10 04:21:17 [ci-contrail-controller-systest-redhat70-kilo] $ /bin/bash 
/tmp/hudson6873797067989609058.sh

2017-07-10 04:23:25 rsync: connection unexpectedly closed (0 bytes received so 
far) [Receiver]

2017-07-10 04:23:25 rsync error: unexplained error (code 255) at io.c(605) 
[Receiver=3.0.9]


2017-07-10 04:49:39 ssh: Could not resolve hostname : Name or service not known

2017-07-10 04:52:47 ssh: Could not resolve hostname : Name or service not known

2017-07-10 04:53:18 ssh: Could not resolve hostname : Name or service not known

2017-07-10 04:57:23 No JSON object could be decoded

2017-07-10 04:57:24 

2017-07-10 04:57:24 ===Failed network health test===

2017-07-10 04:57:24 

2017-07-10 04:57:24 Build step 'Execute shell' marked build as failure

Since changes in a Markdown file intended only for human reading can't possibly 
cause rsync and ssh errors, I assume there must be some underlying problem with 
the CI system itself. Does anyone know if there are systemic problems that are 
being investigated?

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

[opencontrail-dev] [CIWG] Community Infrastructure Working Group meeting

[CARVER, PAUL]

I'd like to schedule a meeting of the Community Infrastructure Working Group as 
discussed at the OpenContrail Summit. The volunteers from the summit are:


  *   Paul Carver (AT) paul.car...@att.com
  *   Pranav Singh (Aricent)
  *   Nabeel Asim (Tech true up)
  *   Jakub Pavlik (Mirantis)
  *   TEMP: Joseph Gasparakis  (Intel)
  *   JUNIPER LIAISON: Aniket Daptari (Juniper)

Other participants are welcome as well. The goal of this meeting will be to 
interactively come up with a list of items for the first WG deliverable:


  *   Identify short term pain points for current SDLC process:
 *   Assessment of current challenges to contribution to identify all top 
level problem areas (2 weeks)

I have previously identified some of this starting at line 122 of 
https://review.opencontrail.org/#/c/32414/2/doc/community/2017_Community_Kickoff.md@122

Please let me know which, if any, of the following timeslots works for you. 
Please reply via direct email to me rather than to the mailing list so that we 
don't clutter up everyone's inbox with scheduling emails.

July 11
1700 UTC
2000 UTC

July 12
1700 UTC
1900 UTC

July 13
2000 UTC
___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org

Re: [opencontrail-dev] [GovernanceWG] Governance Documents Repo

[CARVER, PAUL]

Valentine Sinitsyn [mailto:valentine.sinit...@gmail.com] wrote:

On 06.07.2017 17:05, CARVER, PAUL wrote:
>> I don’t how likely it is that users are subscribed to the 
>> opencontrail-dev list, so the first step would be to reach out to 
>> current people listed on 
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.opencontrail.o
>> rg_opencontrail-2Dadvisory-2Dboard-2Docab_=DwIDaQ=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQ
>> icvjIg=xtmPik_TP2fjPVGWP4yBRQ=S4pZo4oasdJ19fKmjPxiW4IUSpacBQFrQR5L
>> Q0ibw8s=7z9qM7zBHiMwGb8Mn7dy3g9CSdGnQkb6YT9jwi2NpRo=  and asking if they 
>> want to continue and would be willing to commit to (for example) a once a 
>> month or once every two months meeting and a goal of coming up with some 
>> sort of objectives or feedback loop to the developers.


>It would be nice to have a virtual attendance option for these meetings, as it 
>was done for the OpenContrail Summit.


I guess I could have been more specific, but I just assumed that it would be a 
teleconference exclusively. I certainly don't want to place a burden on the 
user/advisory group, just a conference call every a month or two for an hour to 
see what issues people are dealing with.

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

[opencontrail-dev] [GovernanceWG] Election of additional member

[CARVER, PAUL]

Greg,

Has there been any progress on the creation of a governance Git repository 
under the current Gerrit CI? I don't see anything.

The first formal resolution to go into the repository is going to be the 
election of a fifth member of the GWG.

I believe each of the three candidates were going to provide a brief write-up 
of their background so that the four current members of the GWG can have some 
basis for voting on the fifth.


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

Re: [opencontrail-dev] Requesting blueprint feedback - Display mirroring information in Analytics

[CARVER, PAUL]

It looks pretty straightforward, but I've posted some comments to the review 
requesting a bit more detail.

Hopefully someone else can also take a look at this spec.

From: Dev [mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org] On Behalf Of Sudheer 
Boggavarapu
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 03:58
To: dev@lists.opencontrail.org
Subject: [opencontrail-dev] Requesting blueprint feedback - Display mirroring 
information in Analytics

Hello all,

We have submitted a blueprint @ 
https://review.opencontrail.org/#/c/32964/
 , please review and provide feedback.

Brief overview: When troubleshooting VNFs using mirrored packets, when the 
packets are not received at analyzer instance, there is no way to tell if VNF 
is not working or mirroring is not working. The information at 'flow -l' is 
only temporary (till timer expiry) and the only information available at 
analytics is a flag 'mirror' in action field. To facilitate better 
troubleshooting, we intend to capture some more mirroring information 
(mirroring index, mirrored bytes and packet count) in analytics.

Please review the blueprint and provide inputs.

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

[opencontrail-dev] [GovernanceWG] Governance Documents Repo

[CARVER, PAUL]

One of the outcomes of the OpenContrail Summit last week was the recommendation 
to establish a governance repo similar to OpenStack's: 
https://github.com/openstack/governance

This would be a git repository under Gerrit with mirroring to GitHub. The 
purpose of this repo is to hold community governance documents as part of the 
establishment of the new community governance structure which is to be hammered 
out in the next couple months.

I'd like to ask for the assistance of anyone who knows how to create a new 
project under Gerrit and set it up with the same GitHub mirroring as the rest 
of the projects on https://review.opencontrail.org

I can provide a couple of documents for an initial starting point.

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

Re: [opencontrail-dev] [GovernanceWG] Governance Documents Repo

[CARVER, PAUL]

I don’t how likely it is that users are subscribed to the opencontrail-dev 
list, so the first step would be to reach out to current people listed on 
http://www.opencontrail.org/opencontrail-advisory-board-ocab/ and asking if 
they want to continue and would be willing to commit to (for example) a once a 
month or once every two months meeting and a goal of coming up with some sort 
of objectives or feedback loop to the developers.


In addition, some sort of invitation should be sent out for new user members to 
join. That web page states “No sponsorship or fee is required to join the 
board, and members have committed to a one-year term, renewable on an annual 
basis” so perhaps we could encourage some turnover on an annual basis.

From: Gregory Elkinbard [mailto:gelkinb...@juniper.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 21:25
To: ext-edgar.mag...@workday.com <edgar.mag...@workday.com>; CARVER, PAUL 
<pc2...@att.com>; dev@lists.opencontrail.org
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] [GovernanceWG] Governance Documents Repo

I’ve seen two patterns in the communities.

  1.  Communities which have substantial active user presence. (ONAP) do not 
have a separate user advisory board.
  2.  Vendor dominated communities (OpenStack) have a separate user advisory 
board

Deciding what to do with current UAB is one of the action items from the last 
meeting.
Should we keep UAB and if so how to make it active and useful?
Thanks
Greg



From: Dev 
<dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org>> 
on behalf of Edgar Magana 
<edgar.mag...@workday.com<mailto:edgar.mag...@workday.com>>
Date: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 8:17 AM
To: "CARVER, PAUL" <pc2...@att.com<mailto:pc2...@att.com>>, 
"dev@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto:dev@lists.opencontrail.org>" 
<dev@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto:dev@lists.opencontrail.org>>
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] [GovernanceWG] Governance Documents Repo

Hello,

Let’s do not make the same mistake that OpenStack did regarding the governance 
structure and repos. They focused the structure in the technical committee (TC) 
and the user community was left a bit behind, maybe because at the beginning 
there were almost no users. However, our situation is different. Let’s have 
that into account from day zero.

BTW. Excellent follow up Paul! We need this repo and contributions ASAP.

Thanks,

Edgar

From: Dev 
<dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org>> 
on behalf of "CARVER, PAUL" <pc2...@att.com<mailto:pc2...@att.com>>
Date: Monday, July 3, 2017 at 5:15 PM
To: "dev@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto:dev@lists.opencontrail.org>" 
<dev@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto:dev@lists.opencontrail.org>>
Subject: [opencontrail-dev] [GovernanceWG] Governance Documents Repo

One of the outcomes of the OpenContrail Summit last week was the recommendation 
to establish a governance repo similar to OpenStack’s: 
https://github.com/openstack/governance<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_openstack_governance=DwMFAg=DS6PUFBBr_KiLo7Sjt3ljp5jaW5k2i9ijVXllEdOozc=G0XRJfDQsuBvqa_wpWyDAUlSpeMV4W1qfWqBfctlWwQ=QT-IDSMltrPHCCdGgIcZBgbkydt2LLiOTPU9kqzhkEw=UofkMQKo4LN3Ret3MBiNZIet1_g2V6tAlIgzF0ePp_4=>

This would be a git repository under Gerrit with mirroring to GitHub. The 
purpose of this repo is to hold community governance documents as part of the 
establishment of the new community governance structure which is to be hammered 
out in the next couple months.

I’d like to ask for the assistance of anyone who knows how to create a new 
project under Gerrit and set it up with the same GitHub mirroring as the rest 
of the projects on 
https://review.opencontrail.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__review.opencontrail.org=DwMFAg=DS6PUFBBr_KiLo7Sjt3ljp5jaW5k2i9ijVXllEdOozc=G0XRJfDQsuBvqa_wpWyDAUlSpeMV4W1qfWqBfctlWwQ=QT-IDSMltrPHCCdGgIcZBgbkydt2LLiOTPU9kqzhkEw=YDBVnb5p7fI3FXLgkZbM0aUodSVymuQTcSAouGXQA9k=>

I can provide a couple of documents for an initial starting point.

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

Re: [opencontrail-dev] Need help in setting up vRouter in DPDK-enabled mode

[CARVER, PAUL]

Deepak,

I don’t know what platform you’re running on that doesn’t support SSE4.2, but 
just in case it’s a VirtualBox VM running on a computer with a physical CPU 
that DOES support SSE4.2, take a look at 
https://www.virtualbox.org/manual/ch09.html#sse412passthrough


From: Dev [mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org] On Behalf Of Deepak Tiwari
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 01:57
To: Rajagopalan Sivaramakrishnan ; dev@lists.opencontrail.org
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] Need help in setting up vRouter in DPDK-enabled 
mode

Hi Raja,

As I updated last week, I am no longer getting this error (after I switched 
from trunk to 3.2 and back to trunk) now for some unknown reason. Now when I 
start the contrail-dpdk binary, I get following error—

contrail@contrail-23:~/dev/contrail-installer$ /usr/bin/contrail-vrouter-dpdk 
--no-daemon --socket-mem 1024,1024
ERROR: this system does not support “SSE4_2”.
Please check that RTE_MACHINE is set correctly.

After debugging the root-cause of above issue, I found that in file 
“third_party/dpdk/mk/machine/native/rte.vars.mk”, following check (marked in 
red) is missing. I came to this conclusion because—


1.   On my setup, compiler doesn’t report SSE4_2 support

a.   checked with command “gcc -march=native -dM -E - < /dev/null | grep 
SSE4_2”



2.   File “/var/run/dmesg.boot” is not present

Based on above points and following code, “MACHINE_CFLAGS” will get set to 
“-march=corei7”

# on FreeBSD systems, sometimes the correct cputype is not picked up.
# To get everything to compile, we need SSE4.2 support, so check if that is
# reported by compiler. If not, check if the CPU actually supports it, and if
# so, set the compilation target to be a corei7, minimum target with SSE4.2
SSE42_SUPPORT=$(shell $(CC) -march=native -dM -E - < /dev/null | grep SSE4_2)
ifeq ($(SSE42_SUPPORT),)
  CPU_SSE42_SUPPORT=$(shell if [ -f /var/run/dmesg.boot ] ; then grep SSE4\.2 
/var/run/dmesg.boot ; fi)
  ifneq ($(CPU_SSE42_SUPPORT),)
MACHINE_CFLAGS= -march=corei7
  endif
endif

Ref: 
http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-July/004053.html

So I added above additional code as highlighted in RED. Recompiled DPDK library 
as well as contrail-vrouter-dpdk binary and tried to run it. However still same 
error is received

Br, Deepak

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

[opencontrail-dev] [GovernanceWG][TSCWG][CIWG] Initial directory structure for contrail-community-docs repo

[CARVER, PAUL]

I have created an initial directory structure and some README files for the 
contrail-community-docs repo which will be the place where we're going to start 
creating governance documents and resolutions.

https://review.opencontrail.org/34136


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

Re: [opencontrail-dev] OpenContrail Quick Start

[CARVER, PAUL]

It does appear that commits have dropped off to zero since the end of April 
https://github.com/Juniper/contrail-installer/graphs/contributors

It’s also a bit odd that this repo is on GitHub only rather than being a mirror 
of Gerrit. I’m not clear on what the reasoning is behind some repos being only 
on GitHub while other repos have the authoritative source on Gerrit and an 
automated mirror from Gerrit to GitHub.

From: Nabeel Asim [mailto:na...@techtrueup.com]
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 11:56
To: CARVER, PAUL <pc2...@att.com>; 'Abhijit Gadgil' <gabhi...@iitbombay.org>; 
dev@lists.opencontrail.org
Subject: RE: [opencontrail-dev] OpenContrail Quick Start

We have struggled for quite some time getting a basic devstack + open-contrail 
All-in-One installation functional as well.

In absence of "getting started" documentation, it definitely was not easy. 
There is a contrail-installer repo but seems to be little outdated.
With no support for MITAKA and earlier releases of devstack, it makes things 
more difficult.

We tried pushing a fix to the repo but there was didn’t get response on the 
pull request

https://github.com/Juniper/contrail-installer/pull/147<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_Juniper_contrail-2Dinstaller_pull_147=DwQFaQ=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=xtmPik_TP2fjPVGWP4yBRQ=yEARNo_bph8KGjEjDPNf-01YZhFn5bN9cQSUBrXLimE=NkwdROTC1ZmUzH1ZzThfOxSWJ7HYZIz5YeBIIU13fQU=>

Eventually, we wrote a couple of scripts and repos as a stopgap solution to get 
things started. This hacks around a few of the issues to have a working 
devstack-all-in-one-node.

We are working on contributing by fixing issues and documenting relevant 
getting-started steps.

For now, if it helps, you can try using

https://github.com/nasim-techtrueup/contrail-devstack<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_nasim-2Dtechtrueup_contrail-2Ddevstack=DwQFaQ=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=xtmPik_TP2fjPVGWP4yBRQ=yEARNo_bph8KGjEjDPNf-01YZhFn5bN9cQSUBrXLimE=xuSHI2cjWO4RVgy_kjgOwnuS0oDMqHVJEDjJPSg5R6w=>

which is working fairly well for mainline contrail + newton devstack on 
ubuntu14.04.2 build


Best Regards,
Nabeel
From: Dev [mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org] On Behalf Of CARVER, PAUL
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 4:47 PM
To: Abhijit Gadgil <gabhi...@iitbombay.org<mailto:gabhi...@iitbombay.org>>; 
dev@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto:dev@lists.opencontrail.org>
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] OpenContrail Quick Start

You’re right that “getting started” documentation is a major area for 
improvement.

We’ve got a new documentation repository where I hope we will be able to start 
consolidating the best information and weeding out the older and less accurate 
information, but currently it’s just a skeleton.

https://review.opencontrail.org/34136<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__review.opencontrail.org_34136=DwMFaQ=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=xtmPik_TP2fjPVGWP4yBRQ=yEARNo_bph8KGjEjDPNf-01YZhFn5bN9cQSUBrXLimE=auCIJpgaAk1ai-v7GiJjZ_wMueg3uNHu3R23QnSaQPM=>

If you’ve kept good notes on what worked and what didn’t we would love to have 
your help in cleaning up and consolidating the stuff that worked.

From: Dev [mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org] On Behalf Of Abhijit 
Gadgil
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 10:39
To: dev@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto:dev@lists.opencontrail.org>
Subject: [opencontrail-dev] OpenContrail Quick Start

Dear All,
I am quite new to OpenContrail, but not so much to OpenStack or fiddling around 
vrtual networking in general. I am trying to bring up a single node 
OpenContrail. Something along the lines of `devstack`. Unfortunately, the 
documentation seems to be all over the place, for instance the Quick Start 
Guide looks quite dated and hard to follow.
It took me a bit of a time to actually find out that there's a repo called 
`contrail-installer` that does something along the lines of what I want to do. 
I had a few troubles getting around the issues to make it run successfully on 
Ubuntu 16.04 (clearly the support doesn't exist, and looks like this project is 
not actively maintained), I have not yet completely gone past that issue - but 
using another approach I followed I am able to build the repository(ies).
After stumbling upon the following document -

http://juniper.github.io/contrail-vnc/README.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__juniper.github.io_contrail-2Dvnc_README.html=DwMFaQ=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=xtmPik_TP2fjPVGWP4yBRQ=b7k-Tvrzapir03QSr1nFcNlK35bYBHB0hIZmOhlmXt4=TsYHkF9nxE0tFVAKlF0wIdLf6XtDJRC93Wy4Gl7TzCw=>
I managed to eventually get everything to build (though the approach I followed 
was inspired from what is mentioned here, but not exactly those instructions). 
For instance, when you build everything - it starts with web-core which I am 
not so much interested at the moment. I have managed to build the vRouter agent 
and the kernel mo

[opencontrail-dev] Slide deck from the OCUG meeting

[CARVER, PAUL]

Randy,

Thanks for your presentation at the Open Contrail Users Group last week. Can 
you please post a public link to your slide deck for people who were unable to 
attend or who didn't take phone photos of every slide. Especially, the link to 
the Google Group needs to go out so that everyone on the Dev mailing list can 
sign up.

I have a list of potential topics for the first meeting of whatever forum you 
end up organizing.


  *   Compiling Contrail from source - There has been a fair amount of 
discussion of this on the mailing list recently
 *   Discussion of issues people are encountering
 *   Build scripts
 *   Prerequisites
 *   Documentation of the build process
  *   Due dates
 *   An overview of current key dates in the process (blueprint, code 
complete, testing, documentation, beta, GA)
 *   Discussion of any changes that might help contributors plan better
 *   Dates for dates - set expectations on how and when the key dates for 
future releases will be set
 *   Missed date management - discussion of how slipped dates for Juniper's 
GA release impact community development
  *   Testing procedures
 *   Discussion of how third party developers should expect to interact 
with Juniper during the time period between code freeze and beta and GA
 *   Discussion of beta vs release candidate and whether there are process 
improvements needed in order to ensure that third party developers are able to 
catch and fix bugs in the features they are developing
 *   Overview of test framework, not just unit tests but functional and 
full stack automated tests
  *   Documentation
 *   How are non-Juniper developers expected to deliver documentation for 
features that they develop?
 *   When is documentation due?
  *   Core reviewer / TSC / meetings
 *   What are the expectations for a non-Juniper developer to become a core 
reviewer?
 *   Does Contrail have anything equivalent to a Technical Steering 
Committee?
 *   Are there any regularly scheduled meetings (e.g. on Slack/IRC or 
teleconference) for developers to sync up on progress of their changes, discuss 
code reviews, discuss bugs, etc
 *   Build system problems - How can non-Juniper contributors effectively 
troubleshoot issues like this: 
https://jenkins.opencontrail.org/job/ci-contrail-vrouter-systest-ubuntu14-mitaka/480/console



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

[opencontrail-dev] wiki.opencontrail.org

[CARVER, PAUL]

Does wiki.opencontrail.org exist? I'm getting a DNS resolution failure.

This link https://wiki.opencontrail.org/wiki/GerritJenkinsGit#Test_Failures 
appears in the Zuul message on a build failure (e.g. 
https://review.opencontrail.org/#/c/30895/ ) but the link is no good because 
the entire domain fails both a DNS and whois lookup.


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

[opencontrail-dev] OpenContrail summit and governance

[CARVER, PAUL]

Hello OpenContrail Community,

In preparation for the OpenContrail summit on June 28th, I've put together an 
initial draft of document to stimulate discussion on project governance as well 
as processes and obstacles related to contributing to Contrail. If you're 
interested in making it easier to contribute to Contrail, or you have specific 
examples of things that made it difficult to contribute, please take a look at 
https://review.opencontrail.org/#/c/32414/ and provide feedback.

I'll incorporate as much feedback as I can into the document prior to the 28th 
and look forward to discussing the finer details with everyone on the 28th. I 
do expect that four hours on the 28th is far too little time to do everything, 
so this would be a good time to start thinking about potential follow-up 
activities and perhaps some sub-teams who would dig deeper on specific topics 
and write up proposals and/or recommendations.

If you're a Contrail contributor or want to be, especially if you're not a 
Juniper employee, now would be a good time to start thinking about how you can 
help make Contrail easier for you and people like you to contribute to.


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

Re: [opencontrail-dev] Slide deck from the OCUG meeting

[CARVER, PAUL]

It appears that maybe the mailing list bounced it. I did receive a response 
from Randy which was addressed to both me personally and to 
dev@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto:dev@lists.opencontrail.org> but I don’t see 
the message in the mailing list archive. The following is copied from Randy’s 
email.

You can find the deck at: 
https://www.slideshare.net/randybias/rebooting-the-opencontrail-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.slideshare.net_randybias_rebooting-2Dthe-2Dopencontrail-2Dcommunity=DwMGaQ=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=xtmPik_TP2fjPVGWP4yBRQ=qBJyN21tFUOQnhwSbT_-DNeThodF6UM5T02kTVn5uvc=lfZg1Oe-5RFdrXESq16Kkoe4oddxD7yt-9rbJBlla78=>

The Google group can be found at: 
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/opencontrail-founding<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_forum_-23-21forum_opencontrail-2Dfounding=DwMGaQ=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=xtmPik_TP2fjPVGWP4yBRQ=qBJyN21tFUOQnhwSbT_-DNeThodF6UM5T02kTVn5uvc=EPSfK2ER9MzTWj6yWXP6H-qk2CsLqTqgd23L8_Nl26s=>


From: Edgar Magana [mailto:edgar.mag...@workday.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 13:44
To: Harshad Nakil <hna...@gmail.com>; CARVER, PAUL <pc2...@att.com>
Cc: dev@lists.opencontrail.org
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] Slide deck from the OCUG meeting

Folks,

Just reviewing my notes and it seems that the slide deck has not been shared 
yet. I know that Randy is in PTO for a couple of weeks, does anyone else has 
access to those slides?

Thanks,

Edgar

From: Harshad Nakil <hna...@gmail.com<mailto:hna...@gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 7:08 AM
To: "CARVER, PAUL" <pc2...@att.com<mailto:pc2...@att.com>>
Cc: Edgar Magana <edgar.mag...@workday.com<mailto:edgar.mag...@workday.com>>, 
"dev@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto:dev@lists.opencontrail.org>" 
<dev@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto:dev@lists.opencontrail.org>>
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] Slide deck from the OCUG meeting

Usually in community people take responsibility and initiative to do what they 
want.

Whoever is first to take initiative wins :)
Currently developers have put the documents where code is. One can show the way 
by taking initiative.

Regards
-Harshad


On May 16, 2017, at 3:38 AM, CARVER, PAUL 
<pc2...@att.com<mailto:pc2...@att.com>> wrote:
If I remember correctly, rst has a bit of a Python linkage while markdown is 
more widely used, but the most important question is tooling. Github will 
render both automatically but should Github be the primary place for Contrail 
publication?

OpenStack publishes to 
https://docs.openstack.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.openstack.org=DwMFaQ=DS6PUFBBr_KiLo7Sjt3ljp5jaW5k2i9ijVXllEdOozc=G0XRJfDQsuBvqa_wpWyDAUlSpeMV4W1qfWqBfctlWwQ=ZWVtTGwUHCdPj1Vh-UXDmvp6UaWOsOGFj3V-tf7XnF4=kPELO5QDZh_t_Em3sLdqnt_qqlanvszkCIYmFj6hSok=>
 by rendering source files in Git to HTML with Github serving only as a 
secondary mirror of the Git repos. The older documentation has been in Docbook 
XML but a lot of programmers dislike dealing with that at all (and I strongly 
agreed, I'd much rather deal with either markdown or rst than Docbook) so much 
of OpenStack documentation has moved to rst.

If we're going to have a 
https://docs.opencontrail.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.opencontrail.org=DwMFaQ=DS6PUFBBr_KiLo7Sjt3ljp5jaW5k2i9ijVXllEdOozc=G0XRJfDQsuBvqa_wpWyDAUlSpeMV4W1qfWqBfctlWwQ=ZWVtTGwUHCdPj1Vh-UXDmvp6UaWOsOGFj3V-tf7XnF4=HTeY3vpCmOroNHfQF1PhqQazyPnwFPvSHXsLCqn34IQ=>
 generated by Jenkins/Zuul from source files in Git repos then someone will 
need to setup the CI pipeline so it would be worth getting input from whoever 
has the most experience with the existing Contrail CI pipelines.

The important thing is to be clear about it because you can't mix and match. I 
recently cleaned up networking-vpp documentation because someone had written 
markdown in an rst file and that doesn't render properly at all, even with 
Github's automatic rendering.




--
Paul Carver
V: 732.545.7377
C: 908.803.1656



 Original message 
From: Harshad Nakil <hna...@gmail.com<mailto:hna...@gmail.com>>
Date: 5/16/17 00:38 (GMT-05:00)
To: Edgar Magana <edgar.mag...@workday.com<mailto:edgar.mag...@workday.com>>
Cc: dev@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto:dev@lists.opencontrail.org>
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] Slide deck from the OCUG meeting

We have been using markdown for all documentation.
But of course "community" thinks that developers don't understand anything.

Regards
-Harshad


On May 15, 2017, at 9:32 PM, Edgar Magana 
<edgar.mag...@workday.com<mailto:edgar.mag...@workday.com>> wrote:
Hi,

Those will work as well. Maybe, this is a good opportunity to get feedback from 
the community.

What do you OpenContrail member wanted to use?

Cheers,

Edgar


On May 15, 2017, 

Re: [opencontrail-dev] Slide deck from the OCUG meeting

[CARVER, PAUL]

It appears that Proofpoint’s brilliantly designed software mangled the URLs 
into uselessness so here’s another attempt.

You can find the deck at: 
https://www.slideshare.net/randybias/rebooting-the-opencontrail-community

The Google group can be found at: 
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/opencontrail-founding

PS. There might be a tiny bit of sarcasm in this email.

From: Dev [mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org] On Behalf Of CARVER, PAUL
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 14:39
To: Edgar Magana <edgar.mag...@workday.com>; Harshad Nakil <hna...@gmail.com>
Cc: dev@lists.opencontrail.org
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] Slide deck from the OCUG meeting

***Security Advisory: This Message Originated Outside of AT ***
Reference http://cso.att.com/EmailSecurity/IDSP.html for more information.
It appears that maybe the mailing list bounced it. I did receive a response 
from Randy which was addressed to both me personally and to 
dev@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto:dev@lists.opencontrail.org> but I don’t see 
the message in the mailing list archive. The following is copied from Randy’s 
email.

You can find the deck at: 
https://www.slideshare.net/randybias/rebooting-the-opencontrail-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.slideshare.net_randybias_rebooting-2Dthe-2Dopencontrail-2Dcommunity=DwMGaQ=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=xtmPik_TP2fjPVGWP4yBRQ=qBJyN21tFUOQnhwSbT_-DNeThodF6UM5T02kTVn5uvc=lfZg1Oe-5RFdrXESq16Kkoe4oddxD7yt-9rbJBlla78=>

The Google group can be found at: 
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/opencontrail-founding<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_forum_-23-21forum_opencontrail-2Dfounding=DwMGaQ=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=xtmPik_TP2fjPVGWP4yBRQ=qBJyN21tFUOQnhwSbT_-DNeThodF6UM5T02kTVn5uvc=EPSfK2ER9MzTWj6yWXP6H-qk2CsLqTqgd23L8_Nl26s=>


From: Edgar Magana [mailto:edgar.mag...@workday.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 13:44
To: Harshad Nakil <hna...@gmail.com<mailto:hna...@gmail.com>>; CARVER, PAUL 
<pc2...@att.com<mailto:pc2...@att.com>>
Cc: dev@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto:dev@lists.opencontrail.org>
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] Slide deck from the OCUG meeting

Folks,

Just reviewing my notes and it seems that the slide deck has not been shared 
yet. I know that Randy is in PTO for a couple of weeks, does anyone else has 
access to those slides?

Thanks,

Edgar

From: Harshad Nakil <hna...@gmail.com<mailto:hna...@gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 7:08 AM
To: "CARVER, PAUL" <pc2...@att.com<mailto:pc2...@att.com>>
Cc: Edgar Magana <edgar.mag...@workday.com<mailto:edgar.mag...@workday.com>>, 
"dev@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto:dev@lists.opencontrail.org>" 
<dev@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto:dev@lists.opencontrail.org>>
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] Slide deck from the OCUG meeting

Usually in community people take responsibility and initiative to do what they 
want.

Whoever is first to take initiative wins :)
Currently developers have put the documents where code is. One can show the way 
by taking initiative.

Regards
-Harshad


On May 16, 2017, at 3:38 AM, CARVER, PAUL 
<pc2...@att.com<mailto:pc2...@att.com>> wrote:
If I remember correctly, rst has a bit of a Python linkage while markdown is 
more widely used, but the most important question is tooling. Github will 
render both automatically but should Github be the primary place for Contrail 
publication?

OpenStack publishes to 
https://docs.openstack.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.openstack.org=DwMFaQ=DS6PUFBBr_KiLo7Sjt3ljp5jaW5k2i9ijVXllEdOozc=G0XRJfDQsuBvqa_wpWyDAUlSpeMV4W1qfWqBfctlWwQ=ZWVtTGwUHCdPj1Vh-UXDmvp6UaWOsOGFj3V-tf7XnF4=kPELO5QDZh_t_Em3sLdqnt_qqlanvszkCIYmFj6hSok=>
 by rendering source files in Git to HTML with Github serving only as a 
secondary mirror of the Git repos. The older documentation has been in Docbook 
XML but a lot of programmers dislike dealing with that at all (and I strongly 
agreed, I'd much rather deal with either markdown or rst than Docbook) so much 
of OpenStack documentation has moved to rst.

If we're going to have a 
https://docs.opencontrail.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.opencontrail.org=DwMFaQ=DS6PUFBBr_KiLo7Sjt3ljp5jaW5k2i9ijVXllEdOozc=G0XRJfDQsuBvqa_wpWyDAUlSpeMV4W1qfWqBfctlWwQ=ZWVtTGwUHCdPj1Vh-UXDmvp6UaWOsOGFj3V-tf7XnF4=HTeY3vpCmOroNHfQF1PhqQazyPnwFPvSHXsLCqn34IQ=>
 generated by Jenkins/Zuul from source files in Git repos then someone will 
need to setup the CI pipeline so it would be worth getting input from whoever 
has the most experience with the existing Contrail CI pipelines.

The important thing is to be clear about it because you can't mix and match. I 
recently cleaned up networking-vpp documentation because someone had written 
markdown in an rst file and that doesn't render properly at a

[opencontrail-dev] [CIWG] Polling for interest in Community Infrastructure Working Group meetings

[CARVER, PAUL]

The CIWG meetings are being held weekly on Tuesdays at 1800 UTC. Please let me 
know if you would like to be added to the meeting invite. (no need to reply if 
you are already on the invite)

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

Re: [opencontrail-dev] Contrail Route Targets

[CARVER, PAUL]

Route targets are used in the typical manner of MPLS networks to define network 
reachability, but you only have to specify them explicitly when you 
interoperate with BGP routers that are not under Contrail's control. It's not a 
matter of physical vs virtual. Any non-Contrail router that you're using, 
whether physical or virtual would need to be configured with matching route 
targets in order to exchange routes with Contrail. Contrail also uses route 
targets for vRouter to vRouter networking but it manages them internally so you 
don't have to explicitly allocate and configure them.

Generally you'll want at least one gateway between your Contrail networks and 
all the rest of the world (whether that's the Internet or one or more private 
networks whether WAN or LAN), so you'll want to coordinate what route target(s) 
to use between Contrail and that gateway. The gateway itself could be either a 
physical router or a virtual router running on server type hardware depending 
on your performance needs.

-Original Message-
From: Dev [mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org] On Behalf Of Valentine 
Sinitsyn
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 09:10
To: Anda Nicolae ; dev@lists.opencontrail.org
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] Contrail Route Targets

Hi Anda,

I think so. Contrail uses BGP as the control plane internally, so it's not too 
different from physical routers in this sense.

Valentine

On 17.10.2017 17:53, Anda Nicolae wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I am trying to understand how Route Targets are used in Contrail.
> 
> I've observed that Route Targets are used only in conjunction with 
> physical routers that run BGP. Is this a valid observation?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Anda
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Dev mailing list
> Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.opencontrail
> .org_mailman_listinfo_dev-5Flists.opencontrail.org=DwICAg=LFYZ-o9_
> HUMeMTSQicvjIg=xtmPik_TP2fjPVGWP4yBRQ=5lchUe0VFgaFZHFMM2UILB1qfK3n
> jsCEAuLzz8Km0rU=dyhxnJLgNfTCAERTz4HfdBr322b25eM5lE8o0ik1wA8=
> 

___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.opencontrail.org_mailman_listinfo_dev-5Flists.opencontrail.org=DwICAg=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=xtmPik_TP2fjPVGWP4yBRQ=5lchUe0VFgaFZHFMM2UILB1qfK3njsCEAuLzz8Km0rU=dyhxnJLgNfTCAERTz4HfdBr322b25eM5lE8o0ik1wA8=
 

___
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

[CARVER, PAUL]

I agree. There may be certain cases where certain features are mutually 
exclusive. For example, desire for absolute highest possible packet throughput 
may be at odds with some feature that requires a large amount of processing per 
packet. However, even in that case, I think it will still be in everyone’s best 
interest to make it at least an install-time configurable option.

I don’t see the ARB’s function as deciding what features are “allowed” to be 
developed. The function is to provide guidance and coordination in order to 
allow contributors to cooperate without tripping each other up.

Anybody who absolutely needs to maintain a private fork in order to meet a due 
date for a feature with a lot of money behind it can do so, but it’s still 
going to be better for them to eventually integrate it upstream than to diverge 
permanently.

From: Dev [mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org] On Behalf Of Harshad Nakil
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 14:13
To: Jakub Pavlik 
Cc: dev 
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] [TSC WG] Transitioning to open source - PLEASE 
VOTE

Wouldn’t this be true of anybody who is serious developer in open contrail.
Either they have need for a feature in their cloud or they are getting a fat 
check. For Speed of development they will have private fork.

However it is in their interest to sync with main branch, otherwise they lose 
the benefit of community.

So I would not be worried about it.

Regards
-Harshad

On Sep 26, 2017, at 7:44 AM, Jakub Pavlik 
> wrote:

+1 to Robert

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Robert Raszuk 
> wrote:
Greg,

The moment marketing will bring a check with the money the feature will be 
implemented by Juniper and it will ship regardless who says what outside of 
that.

So you have only two choices here ..

* Let Juniper marketing drive the features and keep single code base

or

* Split Open Contrail into two independent code branches one driven by Juniper 
and one pure open source which pretty soon will be incompatible with each other.

Cheers,
R.



On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Robert Raszuk 
> wrote:
Greg,

> Can you think of a candidate who can dictate architecture both to Juniper 
> internal engineering and all other community participants? How’s your spare 
> time now-a-days?

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Gregory Elkinbard 
> wrote:
Harshad,
while in general I agree. It is simply too hard to find such. Since Linus and 
Vish are not applying for the job I am afraid that an attempt to impose such as 
system, may lead to what I experienced while Nicira led Neutron. I would not 
call that benign.

Do you remember Bill Jolitz by any chance? Then you understand my concern about 
handing the keys over. BSD386 kicked Linux ass when they both came out. Linux 
was just barely more functional then Minux, yet it put BSD386 into the ground 
in less than 1 year. Sun’s ARB worked ok for every Berkley ass on it, there was 
a kindly mentor who would help you understand what your code should be, 
creating a counter balance.

If we find the right candidate we can reorganize the ARB around a chief 
architect with assistants to help carry the load. So far no volunteers 
internally from Juniper. Can you think of a candidate who can dictate 
architecture both to Juniper internal engineering and all other community 
participants? How’s your spare time now-a-days?

Thanks
Greg


From: Dev 
> 
on behalf of Harshad Nakil >
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 7:49 PM
To: "Gasparakis, Joseph" 
>
Cc: dev >

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


IMHO architecture board does not work and design by committee does not work.
You really need a benevolent dictator.
Regards
-Harshad


On Sep 24, 2017, at 7:34 PM, Gasparakis, Joseph 
> wrote:
 Thank you all. Clearly option is the winner, and this is the direction we take 
moving forward, thank you all for your voting. Voting is now closed.

Regards,

Joseph


 Original message 
From: gu...@certusnet.com.cn
Date: 9/23/17 03:17 (GMT-08:00)
To: "Gasparakis, Joseph" 
>, dev 
>
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] [TSC WG] Transitioning to open source - PLEASE 
VOTE

Hi,
 Support option #2.

Regards
Gengliang Guo

From: Gasparakis, 

Re: [opencontrail-dev] [TSC] Request for bios for the ARB

[CARVER, PAUL]

I would also like to be considered for being a member of the ARB.

Paul Carver is a principle member of technical staff at AT working on 
Contrail and OpenStack based SDN. After being involved in AT's 
Neutron+OvS+GRE overlay deployment he led an evaluation of available OpenStack 
compatible SDN products in 2014-2015 which included paper analysis of a large 
number of alternatives and lab testing of the finalists which culminated in 
AT's use of Contrail. After the selection of Contrail, Paul created a process 
for gathering Contrail feature enhancement requests from all AT subject 
matter experts and prioritizing AT's development requests to Juniper. Paul 
also initiated discussions with a number of software development vendors who 
are interested in contributing code to Contrail and mentored them on the 
Contrail development process including blueprints, specs and code review as 
well as coordinating the communication of technical requirements for specific 
Contrail feature development. Paul continues to maintain AT's internal 
Contrail development backlog and reviews all AT Contrail development requests 
with the internal AT requesters in order to fully understand the technical 
details of each request.

From: Dev [mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org] On Behalf Of Gasparakis, 
Joseph
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 17:49
To: dev 
Subject: [opencontrail-dev] [TSC] Request for bios for the ARB

Hi all,

As discussed in the OpenContrail summit we are looking to create an 
Architectural Review Board in order to review submitted blueprints, which are 
architectural change proposals. During today's TSC call we defined the 
qualifications for the candidates:

Qualifications for being part of ARB

  *   Members with strong technical background. As an example an architect, a 
CTO, a technical director with tech
  *   Understanding on the OpenContrail architecture
  *   Understanding of SDN/NFV and their use cases

Good to have:

  *   Understanding how Open Source operates (blueprint reviews etc)
  *   Understanding the code of the specific component and related third party 
libraries that is being reviewed
  *   Understanding of the full system view, but either be an expert in system 
level or be an expert in a specific area but with some level of understanding 
in the system.

Please Reply All with your bio if you want to be considered for a seat in the 
ARB by the end of the week (10/1 - I am including the weekend in case that 
helps folks to find time to do it). Please keep it to no more than a page.

Regards,

Joseph


--
[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

Re: [opencontrail-dev] Proposed OpenContrail @ KubeCon agenda

[CARVER, PAUL]

I’d like to propose the following in relation to the email chain below and the 
discussions that took place on the TSC call yesterday. I’ve created an Etherpad 
(hoping OpenStack doesn’t mind us using their Etherpad server for 
collaboration) with a copy of README.md from the contrail-installer repo. I 
suggest that everyone who feels inclined to help should go through the Etherpad 
and update it with any corrections they’ve found in getting their environment 
set up. I’ve also created a companion Etherpad for questions/problems that 
people were not able to solve.

After the developer meeting next Wednesday I will take the contents of the 
Etherpad and merge them back into the contrail-installer repo as a hopefully 
more complete and more accurate procedure that people can follow with more 
success and less guesswork. The URLs are:

https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/oc-tscwg-installer
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/oc-tscwg-installer-QandA

If/when you edit the first Etherpad, please use Markdown syntax if you need 
formatting, don’t use Etherpad’s formatting toolbar. I would like to just copy 
and paste it back into the Git repo where GitHub will automatically render the 
Markdown formatting. For the second Etherpad, you can use the formatting 
toolbar if you want to. I don’t plan for that second Etherpad to be long lived, 
it’s just to gather questions and discussion topics aimed at fixing the 
README.md file.

--
Paul Carver
VoIP: 732-545-7377
Cell: 908-803-1656
E: pcar...@att.com<mailto:pcar...@att.com>
Q Instant Message
It is difficult to make predictions. Especially about the future.


From: Edward Ting [mailto:lti...@lenovo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 23:04
To: Gasparakis, Joseph <joseph.gaspara...@intel.com>; Sukhdev Kapur 
<sukh...@juniper.net>; Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.y...@intel.com>; Gregory Elkinbard 
<gelkinb...@juniper.net>; CARVER, PAUL <pc2...@att.com>; 
dev@lists.opencontrail.org; Rudra Rugge <rru...@juniper.net>
Subject: RE: Proposed OpenContrail @ KubeCon agenda


Sounds good to me.  Let’s work on the fix together next week. In the meantime, 
Yi, feel free to unicast me if you’d like to see my notes earlier than that.

Cheers,

Edward

From: Gasparakis, Joseph [mailto:joseph.gaspara...@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 6:40 PM
To: Sukhdev Kapur; Edward Ting; Yang, Yi Y; Gregory Elkinbard; CARVER, PAUL; 
dev@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto:dev@lists.opencontrail.org>; Rudra Rugge
Subject: RE: Proposed OpenContrail @ KubeCon agenda

Sure, we can discuss but more importantly it is better to put together a 
taskforce to get this done:


-  Edward said they have some fixes

-  Valentine during the TSC call also mentioned that probably they can 
contribute their process to build and deploy

-  Paul with the rest of Infrastructure group are also putting the 
CI/CD in place

-  I have mentioned in the past have a way to build OpenContrail (but 
not deploy)

Combining all the above we should be able to fix the issue sooner rather than 
later. I can pull the above people together and start working on this. Output 
will be documentation (worse case) or chef/pupper/ansible manifests at best…

And Yi: I think you are recently started catching with the community up. This 
issue has been identified long ago, we all know about it, people (especially 
Infrastructure committee and other outside) work on a fix. It doesn’t happen 
overnight and it is up to all of us to put “our house in order”. So let’s see 
how we can do our share moving forward ;-)

So, any volunteers to put some sort of OpenContrail installation together 
(single or multi node) to start with please let us know and I will pull 
everyone together next week.

Regards,

Joseph



From: Sukhdev Kapur [mailto:sukh...@juniper.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 4:58 PM
To: Edward Ting <lti...@lenovo.com<mailto:lti...@lenovo.com>>; Yang, Yi Y 
<yi.y.y...@intel.com<mailto:yi.y.y...@intel.com>>; Gregory Elkinbard 
<gelkinb...@juniper.net<mailto:gelkinb...@juniper.net>>; CARVER, PAUL 
<pc2...@att.com<mailto:pc2...@att.com>>; Gasparakis, Joseph 
<joseph.gaspara...@intel.com<mailto:joseph.gaspara...@intel.com>>; 
dev@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto:dev@lists.opencontrail.org>; Rudra Rugge 
<rru...@juniper.net<mailto:rru...@juniper.net>>
Subject: Re: Proposed OpenContrail @ KubeCon agenda

Edward, Yi, et. all,

I am the newest member of the OpenContrail team and have had my share of issues 
trying to install OpenContrail. Therefore, I do appreciate what you are saying. 
I am all for documenting the issues and solutions so that, as a community, we 
can all leverage from each other’s pain points and solutions.
Having said that, why don’t we come up with a place “OpenContrail User Central” 
(or something like that) where we can start to post these kinds of 
solutions/fixes

Re: [opencontrail-dev] Proposed OpenContrail @ KubeCon agenda

[CARVER, PAUL]

The more questions the better. The ideal would be no slides and all questions, 
answers and discussions.

No formal pre-work is required, but I would encourage anyone who is 
contemplating any Contrail development to spend a little time thinking about 
what you think your development steps will be and make a list of anything that 
you’re unsure about. The goal of this session is to get developers up to speed, 
so the more specific examples we have of either obstacles or simply things that 
ought to be covered in a getting started guide but aren’t will be helpful.

I’m hoping to create the beginnings of a developer FAQ based on what questions 
people have.

--
Paul Carver
VoIP: 732-545-7377
Cell: 908-803-1656
E: pcar...@att.com
Q Instant Message
It is difficult to make predictions. Especially about the future.


From: Dev [mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org] On Behalf Of Sukhdev Kapur
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 17:09
To: Gregory Elkinbard ; Gasparakis, Joseph 
; dev@lists.opencontrail.org; Rudra Rugge 

Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] Proposed OpenContrail @ KubeCon agenda

Joesph, Greg:

There is not pre-work required. Just come, bring an attitude to learn things, 
and bring your questions.
We have few speakers identified to cover this 4-hour session.

Rudra and I will cover the Overall architecture
We have additional speakers to cover Controller, analytics, and testing areas.

I am working on getting some slides that we will use to cover the architecture.

HTH
-Sukhdev


From: Gregory Elkinbard >
Date: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 1:59 PM
To: "Gasparakis, Joseph" 
>, 
"dev@lists.opencontrail.org" 
>, Rudra Rugge 
>, Sukhdev Kapur 
>
Subject: Re: Proposed OpenContrail @ KubeCon agenda

Rudra, Sukhdev,
You own this session. Can you please respond.
Thanks
Greg


From: "Gasparakis, Joseph" 
>
Date: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 1:49 PM
To: Gregory Elkinbard >, 
"dev@lists.opencontrail.org" 
>
Subject: RE: Proposed OpenContrail @ KubeCon agenda

Greg,

For Dec 6th 1:00- 5:00 Developer Track: Is there any pre-work required?

Thanks

Joseph

From: Dev [mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org] On Behalf Of Gregory 
Elkinbard
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 11:32 AM
To: dev@lists.opencontrail.org
Subject: [opencontrail-dev] Proposed OpenContrail @ KubeCon agenda

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YA0X1GYcAMhcXAhjdSnq_WWmhQKV6pHwkK3PSu9V3e4/edit?usp=sharing
___
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

[CARVER, PAUL]

Could be worse:

https://www.schlockmercenary.com/2008-08-08
https://www.schlockmercenary.com/2008-08-10


--
Paul Carver
VoIP: 732-545-7377
Cell: 908-803-1656
E: pcar...@att.com
Q Instant Message
It is difficult to make predictions. Especially about the future.


From: Dev [mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 17:21
To: Gregory Elkinbard 
Cc: dev@lists.opencontrail.org
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] We need a new name

Hey Nachi,

> BTW how about natto? this food seems like a network :P 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natt%C5%8D

Do you really want to discourage people from using it :)))  ?

Cheers,
R,

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

Re: [opencontrail-dev] Proposed OpenContrail @ KubeCon agenda

[CARVER, PAUL]

The December 7th event has been cancelled. There's a short "user track" at the 
end of the day on the 6th, but no separate event on the 7th.

Greg told me yesterday that he was going to send out Eventbrite invites 
yesterday but I didn't see them so I assume he ran out of time before getting 
to it. You should go by the agenda in the Google doc. The info on the 
opencontrail.org website is older and still needs to be updated.

-- 
Paul Carver
VoIP: 732-545-7377
Cell: 908-803-1656
E: pcar...@att.com
Q Instant Message
It is difficult to make predictions. Especially about the future.


-Original Message-
From: Dev [mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org] On Behalf Of Valentine 
Sinitsyn
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 03:48
To: Gregory Elkinbard ; dev@lists.opencontrail.org
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] Proposed OpenContrail @ KubeCon agenda

Hi Greg,

Thanks for the agenda. But I'm a bit confused: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.opencontrail.org_event_opencontrail-2Dkubecon-2Daustin_=DwICAg=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=xtmPik_TP2fjPVGWP4yBRQ=vWWmg8quTKVBKkqE74m4RnfHlECtxW_tnR5wC4khrh0=-hL00X85DKndizubTweBAJirgmUJVbXGtcBUdWjms68=
  says there will be a User Group event on 12/07. Previously, you told there 
will be no events on Thursday. Which statement is up-to-date?

Aside, where do we register (Eventrite or anything)?

Cheers,
Valentine

On 22.11.2017 00:32, Gregory Elkinbard wrote:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_d
> ocument_d_1YA0X1GYcAMhcXAhjdSnq-5FWWmhQKV6pHwkK3PSu9V3e4_edit-3Fusp-3D
> sharing=DwICAg=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=xtmPik_TP2fjPVGWP4yBRQ=v
> WWmg8quTKVBKkqE74m4RnfHlECtxW_tnR5wC4khrh0=ZuIdrIIefmtISTO4pwJeYIkRd
> kt8sNF7mKRCZvyAI6k=
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Dev mailing list
> Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.opencontrail
> .org_mailman_listinfo_dev-5Flists.opencontrail.org=DwICAg=LFYZ-o9_
> HUMeMTSQicvjIg=xtmPik_TP2fjPVGWP4yBRQ=vWWmg8quTKVBKkqE74m4RnfHlECt
> xW_tnR5wC4khrh0=6ZPnhOx3YLV05XDfE1dZJMpjQhSSzps5CWf9EcLidnU=
> 

___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.opencontrail.org_mailman_listinfo_dev-5Flists.opencontrail.org=DwICAg=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=xtmPik_TP2fjPVGWP4yBRQ=vWWmg8quTKVBKkqE74m4RnfHlECtxW_tnR5wC4khrh0=6ZPnhOx3YLV05XDfE1dZJMpjQhSSzps5CWf9EcLidnU=
 

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

Re: [opencontrail-dev] Proposed OpenContrail @ KubeCon agenda

[CARVER, PAUL]

No, sorry. It’s just a regular “HD” camera I bought a couple years ago. If 
anyone does have a 4K camera they want to bring, I’ll defer to them. Or, an 
option would be to do both Zoom video and a YouTube (or other) livestream with 
one camera positioned right up close to capture only the whiteboard and another 
camera for a wider shot of the room. Remote participants would be able to 
choose between watching one or both depending on how much monitor 
size/resolution and bandwidth they have available.

--
Paul Carver
VoIP: 732-545-7377
Cell: 908-803-1656
E: pcar...@att.com<mailto:pcar...@att.com>
Q Instant Message
It is difficult to make predictions. Especially about the future.


From: Gregory Elkinbard [mailto:gelkinb...@juniper.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 22:30
To: CARVER, PAUL <pc2...@att.com>; Aniket Daptari <aniket.contr...@gmail.com>; 
Sukhdev Kapur <sukh...@juniper.net>
Cc: Edward Ting <lti...@lenovo.com>; Gasparakis, Joseph 
<joseph.gaspara...@intel.com>; Yang, Yi Y <yi.y.y...@intel.com>; 
dev@lists.opencontrail.org; Rudra Rugge <rru...@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] Proposed OpenContrail @ KubeCon agenda

Zoom will record video.
Recording is auto set for both sessions. Any chance the camera is 4k so that we 
can read the white board in video?

G


From: "CARVER, PAUL" <pc2...@att.com<mailto:pc2...@att.com>>
Date: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 6:55 AM
To: Gregory Elkinbard <gelkinb...@juniper.net<mailto:gelkinb...@juniper.net>>, 
Aniket Daptari <aniket.contr...@gmail.com<mailto:aniket.contr...@gmail.com>>, 
Sukhdev Kapur <sukh...@juniper.net<mailto:sukh...@juniper.net>>
Cc: Edward Ting <lti...@lenovo.com<mailto:lti...@lenovo.com>>, "Gasparakis, 
Joseph" <joseph.gaspara...@intel.com<mailto:joseph.gaspara...@intel.com>>, 
"Yang, Yi Y" <yi.y.y...@intel.com<mailto:yi.y.y...@intel.com>>, 
"dev@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto:dev@lists.opencontrail.org>" 
<dev@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto:dev@lists.opencontrail.org>>, Rudra Rugge 
<rru...@juniper.net<mailto:rru...@juniper.net>>
Subject: RE: [opencontrail-dev] Proposed OpenContrail @ KubeCon agenda

I’m planning to bring along the USB video camera that I brought to the St Louis 
Contrail summit and share that via Zoom so that remote participants will have 
some view of the on-site room, but I don’t know if Zoom will record it. If 
somebody wanted to, they could do something like a YouTube live stream on their 
phone but I’m not sure how much value that would have. Given our lack of 
budget, don’t expect a professional conference video recording setup.

--
Paul Carver
VoIP: 732-545-7377
Cell: 908-803-1656
E: pcar...@att.com<mailto:pcar...@att.com>
Q Instant Message
It is difficult to make predictions. Especially about the future.


From: Gregory Elkinbard [mailto:gelkinb...@juniper.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 02:24
To: Aniket Daptari 
<aniket.contr...@gmail.com<mailto:aniket.contr...@gmail.com>>; Sukhdev Kapur 
<sukh...@juniper.net<mailto:sukh...@juniper.net>>
Cc: CARVER, PAUL <pc2...@att.com<mailto:pc2...@att.com>>; Edward Ting 
<lti...@lenovo.com<mailto:lti...@lenovo.com>>; Gasparakis, Joseph 
<joseph.gaspara...@intel.com<mailto:joseph.gaspara...@intel.com>>; Yang, Yi Y 
<yi.y.y...@intel.com<mailto:yi.y.y...@intel.com>>; 
dev@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto:dev@lists.opencontrail.org>; Rudra Rugge 
<rru...@juniper.net<mailto:rru...@juniper.net>>
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] Proposed OpenContrail @ KubeCon agenda

Not quite.
Zoom will record presentations and audio. But I do not think we opted for a 
full video set up.
Greg


From: <anike...@gmail.com<mailto:anike...@gmail.com>> on behalf of Aniket 
Daptari <aniket.contr...@gmail.com<mailto:aniket.contr...@gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 10:05 PM
To: Sukhdev Kapur <sukh...@juniper.net<mailto:sukh...@juniper.net>>
Cc: "CARVER, PAUL" <pc2...@att.com<mailto:pc2...@att.com>>, Edward Ting 
<lti...@lenovo.com<mailto:lti...@lenovo.com>>, "Gasparakis, Joseph" 
<joseph.gaspara...@intel.com<mailto:joseph.gaspara...@intel.com>>, "Yang, Yi Y" 
<yi.y.y...@intel.com<mailto:yi.y.y...@intel.com>>, Gregory Elkinbard 
<gelkinb...@juniper.net<mailto:gelkinb...@juniper.net>>, 
"dev@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto:dev@lists.opencontrail.org>" 
<dev@lists.opencontrail.org<mailto:dev@lists.opencontrail.org>>, Rudra Rugge 
<rru...@juniper.net<mailto:rru...@juniper.net>>
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] Proposed OpenContrail @ KubeCon agenda

Hi Greg,

Do we plan to video record these sessions?

Thanks,
Aniket


On Tue

Re: [opencontrail-dev] Demo of setting up a Contrail dev environment

[CARVER, PAUL]

Due to a little miscommunication the prep work wasn’t correct so I’ve restarted 
the build process and we’re going to follow up on this tomorrow, December 14th 
at 1300UTC. There’s no value is people just watching the automated parts run, 
we just want to work on problems, if any occur. If it runs 100% successfully, 
and meets all goals I’ll send a follow-up email to the list and we’ll have some 
discussion on the TSC and Infrastructure meetings next Monday and Tuesday. If 
there are problems, we’ll meet tomorrow at 1300UTC to review the problems and 
work through them.


--
Paul Carver
VoIP: 732-545-7377
Cell: 908-803-1656
E: pcar...@att.com<mailto:pcar...@att.com>
Q Instant Message
It is difficult to make predictions. Especially about the future.


From: Dev [mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org] On Behalf Of CARVER, PAUL
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2017 15:30
To: dev@lists.opencontrail.org
Subject: [opencontrail-dev] Demo of setting up a Contrail dev environment

We will be recording a demo of setting up a Contrail development environment 
from scratch on Wednesday December 13th at 1300UTC using the scripting that 
Alex Levine has been working on. Anyone who would like to join in and observe 
and/or ask questions is welcome.

If you’d like to follow along at home, please come prepared with a  CentOS base 
installation to start from.


Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: 
https://zoom.us/j/172248735<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__zoom.us_j_172248735=DwMFJg=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=xtmPik_TP2fjPVGWP4yBRQ=wwxfBf0Nhp_paqBLbuOU_b9hEdAQZk-I2mXv3bbDJt4=1647bBJ8urye0h9sqbLbD3wkKytl6m1LsbQfcF-9Fgs=>

Or iPhone one-tap :
US: +16699006833,,172248735#  or +16465588656,,172248735#
Or Telephone：
Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location)：
US: +1 669 900 6833  or +1 646 558 8656
Meeting ID: 172 248 735
International numbers available: 
https://zoom.us/zoomconference?m=9OAq2ePAMhnbXW2nsrt6ynnHmHlYH1au<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__zoom.us_zoomconference-3Fm-3D9OAq2ePAMhnbXW2nsrt6ynnHmHlYH1au=DwMFJg=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=xtmPik_TP2fjPVGWP4yBRQ=wwxfBf0Nhp_paqBLbuOU_b9hEdAQZk-I2mXv3bbDJt4=w15IDJ9ygBNX5P5qqpi4uEahuB5zicPkTV-kr-ytYjw=>


--
Paul Carver
VoIP: 732-545-7377
Cell: 908-803-1656
E: pcar...@att.com<mailto:pcar...@att.com>
Q Instant Message
It is difficult to make predictions. Especially about the future.


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

[opencontrail-dev] [TSC][Governance] OpenStack Release Cycle and Contrail

[CARVER, PAUL]

In case people don't follow the OpenStack development mailing list, I'd like to 
point out a current discussion: 
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-December/125473.html

The discussion is about a possible move to a once per year release cycle for 
OpenStack with one Project Team Gathering (PTG) per year at the start of the 
release cycle. Individual OpenStack projects would be free to do intermediate 
releases, and the current use of milestones within a release would continue but 
with perhaps an 8 week spacing between milestones. The discussion also touches 
upon providing a longer interval for functional testing prior to release.

The OpenContrail TSC and/or GWG should discuss whether it would make sense to 
align the OpenContrail release cycle with the new OpenStack release cycle 
(assuming that OpenStack does move to the once a year model, right now it's 
just a mailing list discussion, I don't think it has been voted on yet by the 
OpenStack TC). Two possible options are to align OpenContrail functional 
testing and release candidates to the same time period as OpenStack and release 
at the same time, or to choose a fixed offset. For example, set OpenContrail 
release 2 or 4 weeks after OpenStack release.

Of course it's not necessary for OpenContrail to coordinate release schedule at 
all with OpenStack, but if OpenStack does move to a one release per year cycle 
it's at least worth discussing the pros and cons of aligning OpenContrail to 
the same calendar.

--
Paul Carver
VoIP: 732-545-7377
Cell: 908-803-1656
E: pcar...@att.com
Q Instant Message
It is difficult to make predictions. Especially about the future.


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

Re: [opencontrail-dev] Next OpenContrail summit at Kubecon Austin

[CARVER, PAUL]

I would recommend making travel plans based on the Austin convention center 
with the following schedule:

Arrive by noon December 5th if you're interested in governance
Arrive by noon December 6th if you're interested in developer level discussion 
of code and tooling
Arrive by mid-afternoon on December 7th if you're interested in socializing 
with Contrail interested people

Personally I'll be arriving by noon on the 5th and departing early in the 
morning on the 7th.

The location will NOT be in the convention center but Greg is hoping it will be 
within walking distance in order to attract Kubecon attendees.

Juniper is supposed to be booking space, perhaps at the Hilton across the 
street from the convention center, but I haven't seen anything definitive about 
that.

Even if it's not within walking distance, you shouldn't go too far wrong flying 
into the Austin airport and booking a hotel somewhere in the general downtown 
area.

-- 
Paul Carver
VoIP: 732-545-7377
Cell: 908-803-1656
E: pcar...@att.com
Q Instant Message
It is difficult to make predictions. Especially about the future.


-Original Message-
From: Dev [mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org] On Behalf Of Valentine 
Sinitsyn
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 06:51
To: Gregory Elkinbard ; dev@lists.opencontrail.org
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] Next OpenContrail summit at Kubecon Austin

Hi all,

Any news on this? With Summit being less than a month ahead, it would be great 
to know the details like dates (are the ones below remain?), venue (KubeCon 
pass or not) and BOF sessions.

Thanks,
Valentine

On 03.10.2017 04:11, Gregory Elkinbard wrote:
> Hi folks per Fri Governance meeting we have updated our summit schedule.
> 
> The governance summit will be half-a-day on Dec 5^th in the afternoon 
> allowing folks to fly in the morning if needed. Tentative schedule 
> 1-5pm, with possibility of extending into the evening if needed. We 
> are making an excellent progress on the charter documents so hopefully 
> we can focus on final review and ratification of the initial community 
> charter during this meeting.
> 
> User education track designed to attract new members to the community 
> will be on Dec 7^th in the evening and will be focused on helping new 
> users understand OC and its features and for new members to join the 
> community and be able to navigate it and contribute.
> 
> In addition, we are discussing possibility of BOF sessions for the 
> technical community members to meet face to face. We will create these 
> sessions if there is enough demand for them.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Greg
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Dev mailing list
> Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.opencontrail
> .org_mailman_listinfo_dev-5Flists.opencontrail.org=DwICAg=LFYZ-o9_
> HUMeMTSQicvjIg=xtmPik_TP2fjPVGWP4yBRQ=5YE2IqwkhS8S-OzG3hW7GxaJQDbc
> EmWJ3PIAX8xRE88=Uj76J2ZOE74bW2b5iItX_LK1__EqZRk_TmiMPhQtY6o=
> 

___
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.opencontrail.org_mailman_listinfo_dev-5Flists.opencontrail.org=DwICAg=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=xtmPik_TP2fjPVGWP4yBRQ=5YE2IqwkhS8S-OzG3hW7GxaJQDbcEmWJ3PIAX8xRE88=Uj76J2ZOE74bW2b5iItX_LK1__EqZRk_TmiMPhQtY6o=
 

___
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

[CARVER, PAUL]

I don’t know how to convince the LF and Juniper lawyers, but I completely 
agree. I want a commercial support arrangement, but I don’t want commercial 
software that is “based on” or “derived from” Open Source. I want a commercial 
support contract for software that *IS* Open Source. The commonality of the 
naming is important because I specifically want to know that when I buy Linux 
of OpenStack or Contrail from a vendor that what they’re selling me is support 
and services, NOT permission to use proprietary software that shares x% of its 
code with an Open Source project.

To me the ideal would be multiple vendors all with their own separate groups of 
customers but with everybody agreeing that Juniper’s Open Contrail and X’s Open 
Contrail and Y’s Open Contrail are all the same software, cooperatively 
developed by Juniper and X and Y, with vendors differentiated by level of 
support, pricing, strength of presence in various countries, knowledge of 
customers’ specific industries, etc.

I know some lawyers, perhaps including AT’s lawyers, don’t like the GPL, but 
I personally do like it specifically because I like knowing that the software 
I’m paying for doesn’t merely *contain* some formerly open source code, but is 
in fact currently and will be in the future, entirely Open Source.

--
Paul Carver
VoIP: 732-545-7377
Cell: 908-803-1656
E: pcar...@att.com
Q Instant Message
It is difficult to make predictions. Especially about the future.


From: Dev [mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 03:32
To: Harshad Nakil 
Cc: dev@lists.opencontrail.org
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] We need a new name

The most valuable property of Open Contrail is that it comes from the same code 
base as commercial Contrail.

Renaming it means to many customers a divorce from the original principle.

//RR

On Dec 1, 2017 05:12, "Harshad Nakil" 
> wrote:
Forcing OpenContrail to give up identity that got us here since last five years 
is not right.
It is also being ungrateful to creativity.

I never understood the insistence to be part of LF.

Regards
-Harshad


On Nov 30, 2017, at 6:15 PM, Gregory Elkinbard 
> wrote:
I will ask the LF folks,
But please note that RedHat does not actually own, or tried to own Linux as a 
trademark.
RedHat site seems to claims that Enterprise Linux is a registered trademark it 
is actually not.

Enterprise Linux was filed and abandoned in 2008 by some magazine, RedHat filed 
Enterprise Linux Advanced Platform which also
was abandoned in 2008 and trademark was never granted according to US

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc=4809:yjpkzi.2.3
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc=4809:yjpkzi.2.1

So RedHat is using Linux in the product name without owning the trademark.
They also should not have a registration mark against Enterprise Linux on their 
site as It is not a USA registered trademark.

We do need to retain Contrail as trademark not just use it in the product name.

Both internal lawyers and LF lawyers had a fit. Trust me I did not give up this 
fight easily.

Greg



From: Dev 
> 
on behalf of Sachin Bansal >
Date: Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 5:38 PM
To: Harshad Nakil >
Cc: "dev@lists.opencontrail.org" 
>
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] We need a new name

+1

I also see double standards here. They have no problem with Redhat selling a 
product with ‘Linux’ in its name.

Sachin

On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:21 PM, Harshad Nakil 
> wrote:

+1

On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:18 PM, Ashish Ranjan 
> wrote:

I would rather go to Apache foundation or somewhere else if Linux foundation 
has issues with ‘contrail’. There is no way we should try to rename this and 
create confusion (and dilute brand).

I am not an expert but I see there are many open source projects (like Docker, 
Kafka) with commercial version.

Ashish


From: Dev 

[opencontrail-dev] Demo of setting up a Contrail dev environment

[CARVER, PAUL]

We will be recording a demo of setting up a Contrail development environment 
from scratch on Wednesday December 13th at 1300UTC using the scripting that 
Alex Levine has been working on. Anyone who would like to join in and observe 
and/or ask questions is welcome.

If you’d like to follow along at home, please come prepared with a  CentOS base 
installation to start from.


Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://zoom.us/j/172248735

Or iPhone one-tap :
US: +16699006833,,172248735#  or +16465588656,,172248735#
Or Telephone：
Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location)：
US: +1 669 900 6833  or +1 646 558 8656
Meeting ID: 172 248 735
International numbers available: 
https://zoom.us/zoomconference?m=9OAq2ePAMhnbXW2nsrt6ynnHmHlYH1au


--
Paul Carver
VoIP: 732-545-7377
Cell: 908-803-1656
E: pcar...@att.com
Q Instant Message
It is difficult to make predictions. Especially about the future.


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

Re: [opencontrail-dev] OpenContrail TSC calls

[CARVER, PAUL]

Possible TSC agenda items:


  *   Creation of "Series goal" and "Milestone target" values in Launchpad. Who 
has the technical ability to create these and what entries should be created.
  *   Review of blueprints
 *   https://blueprints.launchpad.net/opencontrail/+spec/evpn-type-5
 *   https://blueprints.launchpad.net/juniperopenstack/+spec/kubernetes-5.0 
(apparently there was some issue with creating this under the "opencontrail" 
project so we should review it and also if possible figure out what the issue 
was)
 *   
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/juniperopenstack/+spec/user-defined-rd-range 
(I've asked Sandeep to create a new copy of this under "opencontrail" but I 
haven't seen it yet. However, the spec AND code have already been merged so we 
should review and presumably approve the blueprint)
 *   
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/opencontrail/+spec/analytics-mirroring-index
  *   Initial discussion of policy regarding commits lacking tests (prompted by 
a mailing list discussion about a test only commit that was submitted following 
a bug fix commit that didn't include any test for the bug being fixed)
  *   https://review.opencontrail.org/38624 Creation of release subdirectories 
for specs
  *   Review updates to 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1O5Nhi_kdEWLMOIwnkNL1jnZXfyfiSHq1L7nho2u2AuM/edit#gid=0
 which is the list of repos given to the LF. In particular the "Additional 
Repos" tab.

--
Paul Carver
VoIP: 732-545-7377
Cell: 908-803-1656
E: pcar...@att.com
Q Instant Message
It is difficult to make predictions. Especially about the future.


From: Dev [mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org] On Behalf Of Gasparakis, 
Joseph
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 12:34
To: dev@lists.opencontrail.org
Subject: [opencontrail-dev] OpenContrail TSC calls

Hi all,

We will be resuming the TSC calls starting this Monday 1/8. The call will be 
taking place every Monday from 12pm-1pm PST.
Please let me know if you need an invitation and I will forward it to you.

Also I am polling for items for next Monday's agenda.

Talk to you on Monday.

Regards,

Joseph

--
[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

Re: [opencontrail-dev] [Announce] Opinion Please: Help Choose OpenContrail's New Name

[CARVER, PAUL]

The Linux Foundation refuses to accept the OpenContrail trademark if they can’t 
also have the Contrail trademark. So, although you feel that they are not 
similar, we don’t have any leverage to override LF’s decision. Unless you 
really think we should abandon the move to LF (please don’t) and go back to 
square one of deciding on a new governance structure, we have to accept the 
LF’s stance.

Were there other names on the naming candidate list 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tSx3PLQbyojqJZHStl6fetDU3lX5774mItajbFWOccc/edit
 that you like better that didn’t make it onto this poll?

Personal opinions are always going to have some differences, for example I 
think CFabric is terrible as well. Ian Rae had mentioned Cloudcircuit, which I 
kind of like but I have to admit it’s fairly blah. Nothing on the naming list 
really jumps out at me as a really terrific name, but I’m not particularly 
invested in what we call it.

If you’ve got a suggestion that passes trademark review (because that’s 100% 
mandatory and beyond our control) then please do campaign for it. But it isn’t 
doing us any good to keep coming back to OpenContrail because the lawyers have 
spoken, not just Juniper’s lawyers but the Linux Foundation’s lawyers. And 
unless you’ve consulted your own trademark lawyers and gotten a different 
opinion (that your lawyers are willing to argue with other lawyers over) 
there’s just nothing to be gained by lamenting their opinion.

--
Paul Carver
VoIP: 732-545-7377
Cell: 908-803-1656
E: pcar...@att.com
It is difficult to make predictions. Especially about the future.


From: Dev [mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 05:33
To: Edgar Magana 
Cc: dev@lists.opencontrail.org; annou...@lists.opencontrail.org
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] [Announce] Opinion Please: Help Choose 
OpenContrail's New Name

Hi Edgar,

> In my opinion, these three names sound awful.

Completely agree ! Terrible. Why not something very easy like CFabric ? (Oh no 
it starts with bad letter "c" ;-).

>  Maybe we could negotiate with Juniper ...

Exactly proposed the same few months back (when this all started to surface). 
Got back bunch of unicasts from J that this is impossible to negotiate - the 
internal decision has been made.

I actually still do not understand the real reason: LF/Community project name 
is: OpenContrail. Juniper commercial name is: Contrail. Completely different 
words/names. What's wrong with keeping it as it was named day one ?

Otherwise looking at the three alternatives provided it does look like someone 
really hard is trying to kill the community version :(

Cheers,
R.


On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 4:48 AM, Edgar Magana 
> wrote:
Community,

I know I have been disengaged lately from the project and I probably do not 
deserve a voice here. However, I would like to ask you for your forgiveness if 
I do say something that is out of place, wrong or even offensive, it is not my 
intention.

In my opinion, these three names sound awful. I think we should do better 
marketing about it. It feels that we are going to lose a lot of good branding 
with OpenContrail. Maybe going under Linux Foundation is not the best option 
for this open-source project. I know a lot of people have invested a lot of 
effort on making this project part of the LF but again, just feel that we are 
going to lose a lot. Maybe we could negotiate with Juniper, they were the ones 
deciding open-source it, maybe they are willing to change the name of the 
enterprise version.

These are just my thoughts.

Thanks for reading and understanding my opinion.

Edgar

From: Announce 
>
 on behalf of Gregory Elkinbard 
>
Date: Monday, February 12, 2018 at 4:52 PM
To: "dev@lists.opencontrail.org" 
>, 
"annou...@lists.opencontrail.org" 
>
Subject: [Announce] Opinion Please: Help Choose OpenContrail's New Name

As many of you already know, we are required to change the name of the project 
as part of moving to the LF-N.

We've started the ball rolling by coming up with a slate of names that we've 
preliminarily vetted with trademark counsel. That process has yielded three 
names that we are reasonably confident can pass the more stringent trademark 
test that is presently underway. Now, we need your help.

We've set up a Google Form poll to gather community input on which of these 
three names might be most preferred by a plurality of members. Please follow 
the link below 

Re: [opencontrail-dev] We have a new name!!!

[CARVER, PAUL]

You're thinking of polycrystalline tungsten. This is tungsten FABRIC where the 
warp and weft of the fabric allude to the pure single-crystalline form 
(admittedly fabric isn't body centered cubic, but the name is merely evocative) 
which retains its hardness but is more ductile and malleable. And when combined 
with OpenStack, Tungsten Fabric forms a superalloy 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superalloy suitable for ultra-high performance 
applications such as gas turbines and the nozzles of rocket engines.

As with tungsten, Tungsten Fabric is best used in combination with other 
material where it lends it high melting point and tensile strength to the 
complementary properties of the weaker materials with which it is combined.

--
Paul Carver
VoIP: 732-545-7377
Cell: 908-803-1656
E: pcar...@att.com
Q Instant Message
It is difficult to make predictions. Especially about the future.


From: Dev [mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org] On Behalf Of Harshad Nakil
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 19:18
To: Gregory Elkinbard 
Cc: dev@lists.opencontrail.org; annou...@lists.opencontrail.org
Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] We have a new name!!!

Nice name, hard(inflexible)  and brittle :)

On Mar 2, 2018, at 3:27 PM, Gregory Elkinbard 
> wrote:

We have a name!

Based on input from the community and from trademark counsel, the selected name 
is Tungsten Fabric. We are working with the LF-N governance board to approve 
the project for induction as soon as possible, likely at ONS the last week in 
March.

Stay tuned as we finalize the new branding, website, and social channels for 
Tungsten Fabric, and thanks to everyone who has participated in getting the 
project ready for its migration into the LF-N.


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