Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [OPNFV status] Confirm your subscription

[Raymond Paik]

All,

There's no action required from this email.  Just a confirmation that the
opnfv-tech-discuss is subscribed to announcements from status.opnfv.org
page as we discussed in the TSC call a few weeks ago.

Just one side note...  It doesn't look like there's a way to add a tag to
these messages.  If this becomes "spammy", we can evaluate other options.

Thanks,

Ray

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 4:15 PM,  wrote:

> OPNFV
> Notification Subscription Confirmation
> Thanks for subscribing to OPNFV status updates. You're almost done - we
> just need to confirm your subscription.
>
> In order to activate your subscription, please click the following link:
> http://status.opnfv.org/confirm/18CNe3ie8R9OP8Av
> View status page  or unsubscribe
>  from these emails.
> Powered by StatusPage
> 
>
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
>
>
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [anteater] build log for anteator

[Yujun Zhang (ZTE)]

Yes, that's what I am seeking.

When a comment is posted by a bot, I would be curious on where this message
is coming from. I suppose it is posted from some periodic check task?


On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 7:00 AM Julien  wrote:

> Oh,
>
> I understand the issue: no output of the detailed log of the Jenkins task.
>
> Luke, I will deal with this.
>
>
> Luke Hinds 于2017年7月13日周四 下午10:13写道：
>
>> How do you mean by build log Yujun? I am always interested in feedback /
>> improvements.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 4:10 AM, Yujun Zhang (ZTE) <
>> zhangyujun+...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I notices a warning on license header in
>>> https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/36839/
>>>
>>> [image: Screen Shot 2017-07-12 at 11.03.55 AM.png]
>>>
>>> However the build log is not posted. It's OK for now since the failure
>>> is clear enough. But it would be nice to have the build log as well as
>>> other CI jobs.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Yujun
>>>
>>> --
>>> Yujun Zhang
>>>
>>> ___
>>> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
>>> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
>>> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Luke Hinds | NFV Partner Engineering | Office of Technology | Red Hat
>> e: lhi...@redhat.com | irc: lhinds @freenode | m: +44 77 45 63 98 84 |
>> t: +44 12 52 36 2483
>> ___
>> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
>> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
>> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
>>
> --
Yujun Zhang
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

[opnfv-tech-discuss] [OPNFV status] Confirm your subscription

[noreply]

OPNFV - Notification Subscription Confirmation

Thanks for subscribing to OPNFV status updates. You're almost done - we just 
need to confirm your subscription.

In order to activate your subscription, please go to the following URL:

http://status.opnfv.org/confirm/18CNe3ie8R9OP8Av


--
OPNFV Status: http://status.opnfv.org
To unsubscribe: http://status.opnfv.org/?unsubscribe=f11svw5sz0lt___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [anteater] build log for anteator

[Julien]

Oh,

I understand the issue: no output of the detailed log of the Jenkins task.

Luke, I will deal with this.


Luke Hinds 于2017年7月13日周四 下午10:13写道：

> How do you mean by build log Yujun? I am always interested in feedback /
> improvements.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 4:10 AM, Yujun Zhang (ZTE) <
> zhangyujun+...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I notices a warning on license header in
>> https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/36839/
>>
>> [image: Screen Shot 2017-07-12 at 11.03.55 AM.png]
>>
>> However the build log is not posted. It's OK for now since the failure is
>> clear enough. But it would be nice to have the build log as well as other
>> CI jobs.
>>
>> --
>> Yujun
>>
>> --
>> Yujun Zhang
>>
>> ___
>> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
>> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
>> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Luke Hinds | NFV Partner Engineering | Office of Technology | Red Hat
> e: lhi...@redhat.com | irc: lhinds @freenode | m: +44 77 45 63 98 84 | t: +44
> 12 52 36 2483
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
>
___
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-tsc] TSC vote requested for Danube 3.0 release

[Julien]

Sorry for the late email.

My vote is -1

Personally I suggest to drop Danube release 3 and let's focus on the
release of Euphrates 1.0.
Currently most of the installers are busy on integrating and it is still a
challenge for them. I would like to give the installers more time and
resources in the next release.


Julien


Raymond Paik 于2017年7月13日周四 下午9:29写道：

> Thank to everyone who sent your votes.
>
> There were eleven +1 votes and one -1 vote, thus the release date of July
> 14th has been approved.
> (Trevor, Ross, and Viktor sent their +1 votes just to me via email.  They
> are proxies for Brian Skerry, Jack, and Tapio respectively.)
>
> Ray
>
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:02 AM, Juraj Linkes -X (jlinkes - PANTHEON
> TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco)  wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:
>> opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] *On Behalf Of *Raymond Paik
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 11 July, 2017 17:50
>> *To:* opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
>> *Cc:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
>> *Subject:* [opnfv-tech-discuss] TSC vote requested for Danube 3.0 release
>>
>>
>>
>> All,
>>
>>
>>
>> After checking with several scenarios owners during the Release call
>> today, there was a consensus that people were ready to tag for the Danube
>> 3.0 release on July 14th.  There were some scenarios with degradation
>> compared to 1.0 or 2.0 releases, but they would be explained in
>> documentations (e.g. due to upstream bug).
>>
>>
>>
>> So, I'd like to ask the TSC members to vote on the following by 5pm
>> Pacific Time July 12th.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Does the TSC approve the Danube 3.0 release date of July 14?  (+1, 0,
>> -1)"
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> Ray
>>
>
> ___
> opnfv-tsc mailing list
> opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tsc
>
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

[opnfv-tech-discuss] Request for intro to OPNFV installer design processes e.g. SDNC integration

[SULLIVAN, BRYAN L]

Hi all,

I have been talking with Brandon Jozsa of Charter Communications (cc'd) on 
getting involved in the Armada project. Some of you may know Brandon from his 
former role as AT's lead in the OpenStack Helm project. He is continuing that 
focus at Charter, and collaboration with AT as we continue to drive the Helm 
project in OpenStack.

One of the prep tasks for the Armada project (which is still a proposal), is to 
understand the scope of work that is involved in developing an OPNFV scenario, 
specifically related to how SDNCs are integrated into the plain-OpenStack 
controller, to make e.g. a scenario based upon ODL, OpenContrail, or ONOS as 
SDNC.

I would appreciate if we can do any or all of:
- put this on the agenda for upcoming technical community calls
- add this as topic on installer team calls
- create a call specific to this
- get installer design SME help directly via email

We appreciate any help getting started on this. The expansion of installer 
options for OPNFV with an OpenStack Helm centered installer will I think be a 
great benefit to OPNFV, especially as in this case if it brings additional 
service providers as active OPNFV contributors.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [notice] OPNFV Services Outage

[Trevor Bramwell]

All,

The wiki is back online and all OPNFV services should be fully
operational.

As this outage has affected more than OPNFV, further work is ongoing to
bring all Linux Foundation services back online. If you'd like updates
on that work, please see: https://status.linuxfoundation.org.

A postmortum will be posted to both https://status.opnfv.org and
https://status.linuxfoundation.org after we complete the investigation
with our service provider to determined the root cause.

If you find anything out-of-place or notice further service issues
please let us know at helpd...@opnfv.org.

Regards,
Trevor Bramwell

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 01:33:00PM -0700, Trevor Bramwell wrote:
> All,
> 
> Still working on bringing the wiki back online. It should
> tentatively be up within the hour.
> 
> Thanks for your patience.
> 
> Regards,
> Trevor Bramwell
> 
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:28:02PM -0700, Trevor Bramwell wrote:
> > All,
> > 
> > We are still working on bringing the wiki back online. No ETA at this
> > time.
> > 
> > Will provide another update within 1 hour.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Trevor Bramwell
> > 
> > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:51:12AM -0700, Trevor Bramwell wrote:
> > > All,
> > > 
> > > Gerrit and JIRA appear to have recovered though Confluence is still
> > > offline.
> > > 
> > > We will provide another update within 30 minutes.
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > Trevor Bramwell
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:36:42AM -0700, Trevor Bramwell wrote:
> > > > All,
> > > > 
> > > > We are investigating what we believe to be an issue with 
> > > > network/switching
> > > > equipment in the datacenter hosting a majority of OPNFV services.
> > > > 
> > > > The following services are currently offline:
> > > > * gerrit.opnfv.org
> > > > * jira.opnfv.org
> > > > * wiki.opnfv.org
> > > > 
> > > > We will provide an update within 30 minutes.
> > > > 
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Trevor Bramwell
> > 
> > 
> 
> 




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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [notice] OPNFV Services Outage

[Trevor Bramwell]

All,

Gerrit and JIRA appear to have recovered though Confluence is still
offline.

We will provide another update within 30 minutes.

Regards,
Trevor Bramwell

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:36:42AM -0700, Trevor Bramwell wrote:
> All,
> 
> We are investigating what we believe to be an issue with network/switching
> equipment in the datacenter hosting a majority of OPNFV services.
> 
> The following services are currently offline:
> * gerrit.opnfv.org
> * jira.opnfv.org
> * wiki.opnfv.org
> 
> We will provide an update within 30 minutes.
> 
> Regards,
> Trevor Bramwell


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

[opnfv-tech-discuss] [notice] OPNFV Services Outage

[Trevor Bramwell]

All,

We are investigating what we believe to be an issue with network/switching
equipment in the datacenter hosting a majority of OPNFV services.

The following services are currently offline:
* gerrit.opnfv.org
* jira.opnfv.org
* wiki.opnfv.org

We will provide an update within 30 minutes.

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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [test-wg] docker container versioning

[Jose Lausuch]

Hi Alec,

The versioning is not an urgent matter and it is working well today.  I agree 
it is a topic to be discussed but maybe it is better to wait until everyone is 
back from PTO as it will be difficult to align without the participation of the 
people who are really involved.

- Jose -




> On 13 Jul 2017, at 17:00, Alec Hothan (ahothan)  wrote:
> 
> Jose,
> 
> You should start the discussion at the next infra wg meeting (I’ll be on PTO 
> whole of next week). I think if the issue can be raised and acknowledged it 
> will already be a good step.
> I will just note that:
> - this has to be a joint work by both infra and project teams
> - perhaps we could use some help from OPNFV members who do 
> packaging/versioning for a living ;-) (e.g. Linux distro vendors
> 
> To clarify, I’m willing to help on the container/VM image/docs 
> workflow/versioning since my project produces those. Not so much on the other 
> artifacts such as RPM (which might be more complex).
> I’m not familiar enough with OPNFV to know who works on what, I was hoping to 
> get more active feedback from at least the main/most active OPNFV container 
> owners. The current versioning is clearly insufficient and I’d like to get 
> the input from projects that have been publishing containers for a while.
> 
> Can anybody describe quickly how specs are usually being discussed/redacted 
> by working groups? Email is usually not the best (written) format. OpenStack 
> uses etherpads or text files that are reviewed through gerrit.
> 
> Thanks
> 
>  Alec
> 
> 
> On 7/12/17, 11:35 PM, "Jose Lausuch"  wrote:
> 
>Hi,
> 
>Is there time to discuss this during the next infra wg meeting on Monday? 
> Although the test projects are the main ones using docker containers, we are 
> talking about versioning here, which I believe is topic the Infra team should 
> address.
> 
>I also would like to add to the agenda:
>  -  decision on where to host the docker build scripts (common one or 
> project´s repo?). It has been proposed but not decided.
> 
>Thanks,
>Jose
> 
> 
> 
>> On 12 Jul 2017, at 20:10, Alec Hothan (ahothan)  wrote:
>> 
>> July/August is tricky with PTOs.
>> Perhaps we should start the discussion by email on this mailer and discuss 
>> about it in 2 weeks at the test-wg meeting? 
>> Do you guys usually use a text document reviewed with gerrit to 
>> discuss/collaborate on a spec? Or any other method? Please let me know and I 
>> can get a head start on this.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Alec
>> 
>> On 7/12/17, 8:54 AM, "morgan.richo...@orange.com" 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>   I will be in PTO too :)
>> 
>>   Unfortunately the weekly meeting was today at 8 UTC (APAC slot)
>>   we will use the slot of tomorrow to organize an ad-hoc meeting with 
>>   Bitergia on result vizualization
>>   not sure we will have 15 minutes for another topic
>> 
>>   It is maybe possible to organize an ad-hoc meeting on this topic after 
>>   the point with Bitergia?
>> 
>>   Do not hesitate to modify directly the agenda at your convenience 
>>   (https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/Test+Working+Group+Weekly+Meeting)
>> 
>>   /Morgan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>   On 12/07/2017 17:43, Alec Hothan (ahothan) wrote:
>>> Morgan,
>>> 
>>> Unfortunately, I won’t be able to attend next week (on PTO).
>>> Can this be squeezed into tomorrow’s meeting (July 13)? We could shorten it 
>>> and follow up with a separate meeting or on email/IRC.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>>  Alec
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 7/12/17, 8:32 AM, "morgan.richo...@orange.com" 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>>topic added for the next meeting (20th of July)
>>>https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/Test+Working+Group+Weekly+Meeting
>>> 
>>>Mark and Jose are already involved in several activities dealing with
>>>docker.
>>>Cedric has a good view on this topic.
>>> 
>>>/Morgan
>>> 
>>>On 12/07/2017 17:27, Alec Hothan (ahothan) wrote:
 I’d like to add this topic to the next weekly meeting of the test-wg and 
 would like to know if anybody else from test-wg would be interested to 
 help redact a proposal for enhancing the docker container versioning and 
 build workflow in OPNFV. As I understand this will only concern a subset 
 of test projects for now at least.
 
 To the agenda:
 - Problem statement for those who have not followed the email thread
 - General goals
 - Get feedback from current projects wrt current container versioning 
 scheme, Q
 - Who would like to participate and how to proceed
 We might need about 15’ to go over these points (no question we will need 
 more detailed discussion which can be better done through email or IRC 
 after that meeting).
 
 What would be great is for those concerned project owners to think about 
 how the requirements of their respective project wrt to their 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [test-wg] docker container versioning

[Alec Hothan (ahothan)]

Jose,

You should start the discussion at the next infra wg meeting (I’ll be on PTO 
whole of next week). I think if the issue can be raised and acknowledged it 
will already be a good step.
I will just note that:
- this has to be a joint work by both infra and project teams
- perhaps we could use some help from OPNFV members who do packaging/versioning 
for a living ;-) (e.g. Linux distro vendors

To clarify, I’m willing to help on the container/VM image/docs 
workflow/versioning since my project produces those. Not so much on the other 
artifacts such as RPM (which might be more complex).
I’m not familiar enough with OPNFV to know who works on what, I was hoping to 
get more active feedback from at least the main/most active OPNFV container 
owners. The current versioning is clearly insufficient and I’d like to get the 
input from projects that have been publishing containers for a while.

Can anybody describe quickly how specs are usually being discussed/redacted by 
working groups? Email is usually not the best (written) format. OpenStack uses 
etherpads or text files that are reviewed through gerrit.

Thanks

  Alec


On 7/12/17, 11:35 PM, "Jose Lausuch"  wrote:

Hi,

Is there time to discuss this during the next infra wg meeting on Monday? 
Although the test projects are the main ones using docker containers, we are 
talking about versioning here, which I believe is topic the Infra team should 
address.

I also would like to add to the agenda:
  -  decision on where to host the docker build scripts (common one or 
project´s repo?). It has been proposed but not decided.

Thanks,
Jose

 

> On 12 Jul 2017, at 20:10, Alec Hothan (ahothan)  wrote:
> 
> July/August is tricky with PTOs.
> Perhaps we should start the discussion by email on this mailer and 
discuss about it in 2 weeks at the test-wg meeting? 
> Do you guys usually use a text document reviewed with gerrit to 
discuss/collaborate on a spec? Or any other method? Please let me know and I 
can get a head start on this.
> 
> Thanks
> 
>  Alec
> 
> On 7/12/17, 8:54 AM, "morgan.richo...@orange.com" 
 wrote:
> 
>I will be in PTO too :)
> 
>Unfortunately the weekly meeting was today at 8 UTC (APAC slot)
>we will use the slot of tomorrow to organize an ad-hoc meeting with 
>Bitergia on result vizualization
>not sure we will have 15 minutes for another topic
> 
>It is maybe possible to organize an ad-hoc meeting on this topic after 
>the point with Bitergia?
> 
>Do not hesitate to modify directly the agenda at your convenience 
>
(https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/Test+Working+Group+Weekly+Meeting)
> 
>/Morgan
> 
> 
> 
>On 12/07/2017 17:43, Alec Hothan (ahothan) wrote:
>> Morgan,
>> 
>> Unfortunately, I won’t be able to attend next week (on PTO).
>> Can this be squeezed into tomorrow’s meeting (July 13)? We could shorten 
it and follow up with a separate meeting or on email/IRC.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>>   Alec
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 7/12/17, 8:32 AM, "morgan.richo...@orange.com" 
 wrote:
>> 
>> topic added for the next meeting (20th of July)
>> 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/Test+Working+Group+Weekly+Meeting
>> 
>> Mark and Jose are already involved in several activities dealing with
>> docker.
>> Cedric has a good view on this topic.
>> 
>> /Morgan
>> 
>> On 12/07/2017 17:27, Alec Hothan (ahothan) wrote:
>>> I’d like to add this topic to the next weekly meeting of the test-wg 
and would like to know if anybody else from test-wg would be interested to help 
redact a proposal for enhancing the docker container versioning and build 
workflow in OPNFV. As I understand this will only concern a subset of test 
projects for now at least.
>>> 
>>> To the agenda:
>>> - Problem statement for those who have not followed the email thread
>>> - General goals
>>> - Get feedback from current projects wrt current container versioning 
scheme, Q
>>> - Who would like to participate and how to proceed
>>> We might need about 15’ to go over these points (no question we will 
need more detailed discussion which can be better done through email or IRC 
after that meeting).
>>> 
>>> What would be great is for those concerned project owners to think 
about how the requirements of their respective project wrt to their container 
versioning:
>>> - How often do you think you need to build your containers
>>> - Any hurdles experienced while building/managing container images
>>> - How do your container images relate to OPNFV releases (e.g. do you 
have a 1 container version per release of do you 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [anteater] build log for anteator

[Luke Hinds]

How do you mean by build log Yujun? I am always interested in feedback /
improvements.


On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 4:10 AM, Yujun Zhang (ZTE)  wrote:

> I notices a warning on license header in https://gerrit.opnfv.org/
> gerrit/#/c/36839/
>
> [image: Screen Shot 2017-07-12 at 11.03.55 AM.png]
>
> However the build log is not posted. It's OK for now since the failure is
> clear enough. But it would be nice to have the build log as well as other
> CI jobs.
>
> --
> Yujun
>
> --
> Yujun Zhang
>
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
>
>


-- 
Luke Hinds | NFV Partner Engineering | Office of Technology | Red Hat
e: lhi...@redhat.com | irc: lhinds @freenode | m: +44 77 45 63 98 84 | t: +44
12 52 36 2483
___
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 Project

[Jose Lausuch]

Hi Pavan,

It seems your installer is not supported by the script fetch_os_creds.sh

In that case, you need to provide the openstack RC file from your deployment 
manually to the container, or just copy the content to  
/home/opnfv/functest/conf/openstack.creds

Let me know if it still fails that way.

Regards,
Jose


From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Pavan Gupta
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 14:29 PM
To: Manuel Buil 
Cc: andres.sanchez.ra...@estudiant.upc.edu; OPNFV-TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 

Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] SFC Project

Hi Manuel/Andres,
When I run 'functest env prepare’, I also see this issue:


/home/opnfv/repos/releng/utils/fetch_os_creds.sh: line 76: SALT_MASTER_IP: 
unbound variable

What should be SALT_MASTER_IP address?
Pavan

On 13-Jul-2017, at 3:37 PM, Manuel Buil > 
wrote:

10.20.0.2

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

[opnfv-tech-discuss] Any OPNFV events at Linux Foundation Open Source Summit North America 2017 ?

[SULLIVAN, BRYAN L]

Hi all,

Wondering
* who will be attending the Linux Foundation Open Source Summit North America 
2017 (Sept, LA)
* if there are any OPNFV events planned that week
* or any discount codes for OPNFV members to the event

Aimee and I will be there with focus on containerization and cloud-native NFV 
platforms. I note also that there will be a Moby day 
(https://blog.docker.com/2017/07/title-moby-summit-alongside-open-source-summit-north-america/).
 Moby is the 1-yr old open source project that is taking Docker into a 
full-stack cloud-native platform, and is a potential platform for future OPNFV 
projects as a cloud control plane (and much more) alternative to OpenStack. 
Beyond our team's next-step for the OPNFV platform (Armada, based upon 
OpenStack Helm), Moby looks like where we likely need to go to get to a truly 
cloud-native, ubquitous WORA (write-once-run-anywhere) NFV platform for 
developers. So we are also starting to look at what would an NFV platform look 
like based upon Moby.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

[opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] weekly meeting agenda 7/14

[Wenjing Chu]

Hi Dovetailers,

Here is the proposed agenda for this Friday,


0)  Determine if everyone is OK to extend an hour to the meeting time... 
just this once

1)  A few minutes to update status and the most recent 0.2 release

2)  Review addendum document for test scope

3)  If we have extra time, we can take a look at all the open tasks and see 
where we need most urgent effort.

Thanks.
Wenjing

___
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 Project

[andres . sanchez . ramos]

Hello Manuel | Pavan,

The error where 10.20.0.2 occurs afterwards (when executing functest  
testcase run odl-sfc), for what I can see this is ocurring at  
executing "functest env prepare".


If I understand correctly this error is indicating that the machine  
where you are executing the test does not have connectivity to  
Openstack admin endpoints (which are located in the admin network you  
set up in Fuel - 192.168.0.0/24 by default). So it is probably a  
networking configuration issue: you must be either on the same network  
as openstack admin endpoints (192.168.0.0) or your networking  
equipment must be able to route packets to this network. In my setup I  
did not have any problem with iptables so if you are using fuel this  
is probably not the issue.


Best regards,

Quoting "Manuel Buil" :


Andres, can you explain Pavan what you did to solve your issue? I think
he is also hitting the error you found that 10.20.0.2 is hardcoded.

Thanks,
Manuel


On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 15:28 +0530, Pavan Gupta wrote:

> Ok. Any idea what needs to be done. I am trying things at my

side.Pavan


> > > On 12-Jul-2017, at 7:32 PM, Manuel Buil  wrote:
> Hey Pavan,
>
> > > > > The container must be able to contact the openstack environment,

otherwise it cannot trigger openstack actions. Do you have perhaps
a problem with iptables?

>
> Regards,
> Manuel
> On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 19:05 +0530, Pavan Gupta wrote:
> > Hi Manuel,
> > > > > I have deployed the setup for SFC Functest now. However, while

preparing the environment, I see the following error:

> >
> >
> > > > > 2017-07-12 13:31:30,091 - prepare_env - INFO - >>Verifying

connectivity to the admin endpoint 192.168.0.2:35357...

> > > > > 2017-07-12 13:33:20,236 - prepare_env - ERROR - ERROR: Cannot

talk to the admin endpoint 192.168.0.2:35357 .

> > > > > 2017-07-12 13:33:20,236 - prepare_env - ERROR - Problem while

running 'check_os.sh'.
> > > > > > > > 2017-07-12 13:33:20,299 - functest_utils - ERROR -  
The command

'python /home/opnfv/repos/functest/functest/ci/prepare_env.py
start' failed.

> >
> >
> > > > > In case, you know if there is a fix for this issue, kindly let me

know.

> > Thanking you.
> > Regards,
> > Pavan
> >
> >
> > > > > > > On 11-Jul-2017, at 1:20 PM, Manuel Buil  
 wrote:

> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > > > > > Ok, if you are familiar with the fuel installer, then follow

this

> > > guide:
> > >
> > > > > > >  
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/sfc/OPNFV-SFC+Functest+test+case

s

> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Manuel
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 23:13 +0530, Pavan Gupta wrote:
> > > > Hi Manuel,
> > > > > > > > > Thank you for your reply. We are using Fuel installer to

create a

> > > > > > > > > setup within the company. In addition, we have access to

OPNFV

> > > > > > > > > community lab (Fuel Installer). I can try SFC in the

community lab if

> > > > > > > > > things are available. Kindly let me know what needs to be

done.

> > > > Pavan
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10-Jul-2017, at 10:56 PM,  
Manuel Buil 

wrote:

> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Pavan,
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, you can use OPNFV and the SFC project.  
When would you

like to

> > > > > > > > > > > deploy it? We are currently changing the platform and

moving from

> > > > > fuel
> > > > > to openstack-ansible, however, we will not be ready before
> > > > > September.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you familiar with the fuel installer?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Manuel
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 18:23 +0530, Pavan Gupta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am Pavan Gupta from Calsoft Inc., Pune  
(India) and we

are

> > > > > > actively
> > > > > > > > > > > > > engaging ourselves with the OPNFV community and

development

> > > > > > projects.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > As part of this exercise, we are creating  
an OPNFV setup

and

> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > like to run sample VNFs and also service  
chain them

together. I

> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > like to understand from you if the SFC  
project can be

used to

> > > > > > create
> > > > > > a trial NFV system. 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, it would be helpful if you could share any

documents that

> > > > > > would
> > > > > > help us get started.
> > > > > > Thanking you.
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Pavan Gupta
> > > >
> > >
> >
>






___
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 Danube SFC physical scenario deployment doubts

[andres . sanchez . ramos]

Manuel,

Thank you for your proposal it has been very helpful, i have already  
deployed the Openstack environment and it looks good, it passed the  
health check made by fuel, i also deployed a VM and connected to it  
successfully and have ODL up and running.


I am having a problem to make the functest because i am doing it  
inside a workstation that does not have access to the Openstack  
management network, it is located inside the public network. I am not  
sure which is the best way to proceed:


A) if I give the workstation an IP address inside the management  
network will it work? or maybe IP tables are configured to reject that.

B) Do the functest from my Fuel master (it is a PC that only runs Fuel).

I read the posts in your blog that you sent Rosa and found them  
extremely interesting, it has been very educative. I have some  
questions regarding that scenario that you built (If you have no  
problem answering them):

- What OS and application do you use for deploying the SF? do you use OVS?
- Once you deploy a SFC does tacker pushes the configuration to ODL  
via REST? or do you configure the SFF and SF manually on ODL?

- Do you have any more tutorials or videos similar?
- I have read that OVS+NSH implementation that you use is developed by  
OPNFV and is not mainstream in OVS. Is it possible to use that OVS+NSH  
on a physical device running openWRT?


I ask all this questions because we are interested in setting up a  
similar scenario!


Thank you in advance for your response.

Best regards,

Quoting "Manuel Buil" :


Hi Andres,

Please find my answers below.

Try to run the environment which is supported and after that you can
add stuff like ceilometer. Having a base that works should be your
target right now, later you can add stuff to that base.

Regards,
Manuel

On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 13:51 +0200,
andres.sanchez.ra...@estudiant.upc.edu wrote:

Hello Manuel,

Thank you for your quick response! you are right that scenario is
not  
supported sorry for that! I am trying to set up a NFV environment  
(using SFC) with the ability to monitor cloud resources using  
Openstack APIs, and according to what i have been able to read  
ceilometer provides that information!

Ok since no SFC chains are supposed to be declared i am guessing i
am  
close to deploying the scenario correctly, but i am having these  
issues (let me know if you how to address them):

- Once I create a VM I am not being able to access them (ping fails).


If you list the VM with 'nova list', does it say it is active? Does it
list an ip? Check that it receives an IP lease from the server with
nova console-log



- When I restart a compute node it will take an IP address from my  
public network and after that I cannot ssh into the node.


Strange... but why do you reboot a compute? Are you trying to test some
HA behaviour?



I have the following doubts regarding the deployment options being
set  
up in fuel:

- When creating the environment in fuel what networking option
should  
i choose: Neutron with ML2 plugin & Neutron with tunneling  
segmentation or OpenDaylight with tunneling segmentation?


If you want to try SFC, you should use OpenDaylight


- Right now i am choosing the following role distribution:  
controller-ceph, controller-tacker, controller-ODL, compute-ceph,  
compute-ceph. Is this appropriate?


Start with a simpler env. with one controller and one compute. The
controller should act as cotroller, OpenDaylight controller and Tacker
VNF Manager. Ceph should work but better simpligy things and use
'Cinder LVM'


- I am using the option that states: Assign public network to all  
nodes (I read in the guide that this should be checked). But i
think  
this is causing the communication issue to the nodes.


I have that option checked too but I never reboot computes ;)


- I install Open vSwitch with the checkbox that says install NSH.
Is  
this correct?


Yes


- When marking the ODL Plugin I only check the box that says: SFC  
features with NetVirt classifier. What about use ODL to manage L3  
traffic? should I mark it.


It is not needed for sfc. That one allows you to connect several
openstack deployments among them using L3VPN.


- Do I need to install any other features in ODL (i.e l2switch) in  
order to communicate with my VMs or do I need to declare some SFC  
chains?


Nothing else. When the deployment succeeds, you should be able to run
tests. To run them, you should follow this guide (note that we just
realized that Danube 2.0 is throwing errors... try Danube 1.0 instead):

https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/sfc/OPNFV-SFC+Functest+test+cases



Thank you in advance for your help, i tried to write as clear as i  
could but english is not my native tongue


You write very clearly!



Quoting "Manuel Buil" :

>
> Hi Andres,
>
> Unfortunately, that scenario is not supported in Danube. These are
> the
> ones supported:
>
> 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] OPNFV Danube SFC physical scenario deployment doubts

[andres . sanchez . ramos]

Manuel,

Thanks again for the quick response. After looking through your  
answers I will delete my actual environment and deploy it again! Next  
you can find the answers to your questions:


If you list the VM with 'nova list', does it say it is active? Does it
list an ip? Check that it receives an IP lease from the server with
nova console-log
- Yes, they were active and had a floating IP assigned.

Strange... but why do you reboot a compute? Are you trying to test some
HA behaviour?
- I work on a couple of labs where other people have access so  
sometimes i find "strange" things, so I need to test that kind of  
behavior because it will happen eventually hahaha you know how that  
works.


If you want to try SFC, you should use OpenDaylight
- Ok, that is what i chose. I got confused because of instructions i  
found on this link:

http://opnfvdocsdemo.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submodules/fuel/docs/release/installation/installation.instruction.html
Select “Neutron with tunneling segmentation” (Required when using the  
ODL or ONOS plugins)


Start with a simpler env. with one controller and one compute. The
controller should act as cotroller, OpenDaylight controller and Tacker
VNF Manager. Ceph should work but better simpligy things and use
'Cinder LVM'
- Ok, I am on it

I will deploy an escenario as proposed and will get back to you, thank  
you very much for your help.


Quoting "Manuel Buil" :


Hi Andres,

Please find my answers below.

Try to run the environment which is supported and after that you can
add stuff like ceilometer. Having a base that works should be your
target right now, later you can add stuff to that base.

Regards,
Manuel

On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 13:51 +0200,
andres.sanchez.ra...@estudiant.upc.edu wrote:

Hello Manuel,

Thank you for your quick response! you are right that scenario is
not  
supported sorry for that! I am trying to set up a NFV environment  
(using SFC) with the ability to monitor cloud resources using  
Openstack APIs, and according to what i have been able to read  
ceilometer provides that information!

Ok since no SFC chains are supposed to be declared i am guessing i
am  
close to deploying the scenario correctly, but i am having these  
issues (let me know if you how to address them):

- Once I create a VM I am not being able to access them (ping fails).


If you list the VM with 'nova list', does it say it is active? Does it
list an ip? Check that it receives an IP lease from the server with
nova console-log



- When I restart a compute node it will take an IP address from my  
public network and after that I cannot ssh into the node.


Strange... but why do you reboot a compute? Are you trying to test some
HA behaviour?



I have the following doubts regarding the deployment options being
set  
up in fuel:

- When creating the environment in fuel what networking option
should  
i choose: Neutron with ML2 plugin & Neutron with tunneling  
segmentation or OpenDaylight with tunneling segmentation?


If you want to try SFC, you should use OpenDaylight


- Right now i am choosing the following role distribution:  
controller-ceph, controller-tacker, controller-ODL, compute-ceph,  
compute-ceph. Is this appropriate?


Start with a simpler env. with one controller and one compute. The
controller should act as cotroller, OpenDaylight controller and Tacker
VNF Manager. Ceph should work but better simpligy things and use
'Cinder LVM'


- I am using the option that states: Assign public network to all  
nodes (I read in the guide that this should be checked). But i
think  
this is causing the communication issue to the nodes.


I have that option checked too but I never reboot computes ;)


- I install Open vSwitch with the checkbox that says install NSH.
Is  
this correct?


Yes


- When marking the ODL Plugin I only check the box that says: SFC  
features with NetVirt classifier. What about use ODL to manage L3  
traffic? should I mark it.


It is not needed for sfc. That one allows you to connect several
openstack deployments among them using L3VPN.


- Do I need to install any other features in ODL (i.e l2switch) in  
order to communicate with my VMs or do I need to declare some SFC  
chains?


Nothing else. When the deployment succeeds, you should be able to run
tests. To run them, you should follow this guide (note that we just
realized that Danube 2.0 is throwing errors... try Danube 1.0 instead):

https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/sfc/OPNFV-SFC+Functest+test+cases



Thank you in advance for your help, i tried to write as clear as i  
could but english is not my native tongue


You write very clearly!



Quoting "Manuel Buil" :

>
> Hi Andres,
>
> Unfortunately, that scenario is not supported in Danube. These are
> the
> ones supported:
>
> https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/SWREL/Danube+Scenario+Status
>
> What statistics do you need from SFC? Maybe you can collect them in
> another way.
>
> When the sfc scenarios are successfully 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] SFC Project

[Pavan Gupta]

Hi Manuel/Andres,
When I run 'functest env prepare’, I also see this issue:

/home/opnfv/repos/releng/utils/fetch_os_creds.sh: line 76: SALT_MASTER_IP: 
unbound variable

What should be SALT_MASTER_IP address?
Pavan

> On 13-Jul-2017, at 3:37 PM, Manuel Buil  wrote:
> 
> 10.20.0.2

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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] TSC vote requested for Danube 3.0 release

[Raymond Paik]

Thank to everyone who sent your votes.

There were eleven +1 votes and one -1 vote, thus the release date of July
14th has been approved.
(Trevor, Ross, and Viktor sent their +1 votes just to me via email.  They
are proxies for Brian Skerry, Jack, and Tapio respectively.)

Ray

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:02 AM, Juraj Linkes -X (jlinkes - PANTHEON
TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco)  wrote:

> +1
>
>
>
> *From:* opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:
> opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] *On Behalf Of *Raymond Paik
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 11 July, 2017 17:50
> *To:* opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
> *Cc:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> *Subject:* [opnfv-tech-discuss] TSC vote requested for Danube 3.0 release
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> After checking with several scenarios owners during the Release call
> today, there was a consensus that people were ready to tag for the Danube
> 3.0 release on July 14th.  There were some scenarios with degradation
> compared to 1.0 or 2.0 releases, but they would be explained in
> documentations (e.g. due to upstream bug).
>
>
>
> So, I'd like to ask the TSC members to vote on the following by 5pm
> Pacific Time July 12th.
>
>
>
> "Does the TSC approve the Danube 3.0 release date of July 14?  (+1, 0, -1)"
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Ray
>
___
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 Project

[Manuel Buil]

Andres, can you explain Pavan what you did to solve your issue? I think
he is also hitting the error you found that 10.20.0.2 is hardcoded.

Thanks,
Manuel


On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 15:28 +0530, Pavan Gupta wrote:
> > Ok. Any idea what needs to be done. I am trying things at my
side.Pavan
> 
> > > > On 12-Jul-2017, at 7:32 PM, Manuel Buil  wrote:
> > Hey Pavan,
> > 
> > > > > > The container must be able to contact the openstack environment,
otherwise it cannot trigger openstack actions. Do you have perhaps
a problem with iptables?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Manuel
> > On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 19:05 +0530, Pavan Gupta wrote:
> > > Hi Manuel,
> > > > > > I have deployed the setup for SFC Functest now. However, while
preparing the environment, I see the following error:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > > 2017-07-12 13:31:30,091 - prepare_env - INFO - >>Verifying
connectivity to the admin endpoint 192.168.0.2:35357...
> > > > > > 2017-07-12 13:33:20,236 - prepare_env - ERROR - ERROR: Cannot
talk to the admin endpoint 192.168.0.2:35357 .
> > > > > > 2017-07-12 13:33:20,236 - prepare_env - ERROR - Problem while
running 'check_os.sh'.
> > > > > > > > > 2017-07-12 13:33:20,299 - functest_utils - ERROR - The command
'python /home/opnfv/repos/functest/functest/ci/prepare_env.py
start' failed.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > > In case, you know if there is a fix for this issue, kindly let me
know.
> > > Thanking you.
> > > Regards,
> > > Pavan
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > > > > On 11-Jul-2017, at 1:20 PM, Manuel Buil  wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > Ok, if you are familiar with the fuel installer, then follow
this
> > > > guide:
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/sfc/OPNFV-SFC+Functest+test+case
s
> > > > 
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Manuel
> > > > 
> > > > On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 23:13 +0530, Pavan Gupta wrote:
> > > > > Hi Manuel,
> > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your reply. We are using Fuel installer to
create a
> > > > > > > > > > setup within the company. In addition, we have access to
OPNFV
> > > > > > > > > > community lab (Fuel Installer). I can try SFC in the
community lab if
> > > > > > > > > > things are available. Kindly let me know what needs to be
done.
> > > > > Pavan
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10-Jul-2017, at 10:56 PM, Manuel Buil 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hi Pavan,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, you can use OPNFV and the SFC project. When would 
> > > > > > > > > > > > you
like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > deploy it? We are currently changing the platform and
moving from
> > > > > > fuel
> > > > > > to openstack-ansible, however, we will not be ready before
> > > > > > September.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Are you familiar with the fuel installer?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Manuel
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 18:23 +0530, Pavan Gupta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am Pavan Gupta from Calsoft Inc., Pune (India) 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and we
are
> > > > > > > actively
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > engaging ourselves with the OPNFV community and
development
> > > > > > > projects.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As part of this exercise, we are creating an OPNFV 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > setup
and
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > like to run sample VNFs and also service chain them
together. I
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > like to understand from you if the SFC project can 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
used to
> > > > > > > create
> > > > > > > a trial NFV system. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, it would be helpful if you could share any
documents that
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > help us get started.
> > > > > > > Thanking you.
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > Pavan Gupta
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
___
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] Service Function Chaining in OpenStack using OpenDaylight

[Manuel Buil]

Hello Raul,

When using fuel, the available scenario is Tacker + OpenStack + ODL +
OVS(+NSH) implemented in OPNFV. We have also two test cases running
against that deployment and we are running them everyday
(successfully!):

https://build.opnfv.org/ci/job/functest-fuel-baremetal-daily-danube/870
/ (this is yesterday's run)

Note that we are currently using a non-maintained version of Tacker
which configures ODL directly through a ODL plug-in inside Tacker. The
upstream version of Tacker configures ODL through networking-sfc, a
neutron subproject which is capable of configuring ODL. The link you
mention is talking about that integration with networking-sfc. We would
like to add that integration in the next release of OPNFV SFC and
Miguel Lavalle from our team is looking into that. That way we will be
able to use upstream tacker. Anyway, if you want to mirror what we test
everyday in OPNFV, follow this guide:

https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/sfc/OPNFV-SFC+Functest+test+cases

And if you want to collaborate and help us, for example, with the
integration of networking-sfc, you are more than welcome! We need
people!

Having said so, I think networking-sfc is already working in the APEX
installer. @Tim: can you confirm this?

Regards,
Manuel


On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 10:07 +, Raúl Álvarez Pinilla wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> 
> 
> > > > I have deployed OPNFV Danube 2.0 with Fuel and I would like to test
SFC in the OpenStack environment through OpenDaylight. I am using
OpenDaylight and NSH plugins in Fuel but I am not sure if this
feature is completely implemented or not.
> 
> 
> 
> > > I have seen SFC103 and SFC104 Demos of OpenDaylight but nothing
related to OpenStack. In addition, this page (https://docs.openstack.
org/networking-odl/latest/specs/sfc-driver.html)
> >  mention that 'currently there is no formal integration mechanism to
consume OpenDaylight as an SFC provider for networking-sfc'.
> 
> 
> 
> > So, is this working right now? Are there some manuals related to this
OpenDaylight SFC integration with OpenStack?
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you ver much.
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

[opnfv-tech-discuss] [SFC] Service Function Chaining in OpenStack using OpenDaylight

[Raúl Álvarez Pinilla]

Hi all,


I have deployed OPNFV Danube 2.0 with Fuel and I would like to test SFC in the 
OpenStack environment through OpenDaylight. I am using OpenDaylight and NSH 
plugins in Fuel but I am not sure if this feature is completely implemented or 
not.


I have seen SFC103 and SFC104 Demos of OpenDaylight but nothing related to 
OpenStack. In addition, this page 
(https://docs.openstack.org/networking-odl/latest/specs/sfc-driver.html) 
mention that 'currently there is no formal integration mechanism to consume 
OpenDaylight as an SFC provider for networking-sfc'.


So, is this working right now? Are there some manuals related to this 
OpenDaylight SFC integration with OpenStack?


Thank you ver much.


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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] TSC vote requested for Danube 3.0 release

[Juraj Linkes -X (jlinkes - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco)]

+1

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Raymond Paik
Sent: Tuesday, 11 July, 2017 17:50
To: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] TSC vote requested for Danube 3.0 release

All,

After checking with several scenarios owners during the Release call today, 
there was a consensus that people were ready to tag for the Danube 3.0 release 
on July 14th.  There were some scenarios with degradation compared to 1.0 or 
2.0 releases, but they would be explained in documentations (e.g. due to 
upstream bug).

So, I'd like to ask the TSC members to vote on the following by 5pm Pacific 
Time July 12th.

"Does the TSC approve the Danube 3.0 release date of July 14?  (+1, 0, -1)"

Thanks,

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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [test-wg] docker container versioning

[Jose Lausuch]

Hi,

Is there time to discuss this during the next infra wg meeting on Monday? 
Although the test projects are the main ones using docker containers, we are 
talking about versioning here, which I believe is topic the Infra team should 
address.

I also would like to add to the agenda:
  -  decision on where to host the docker build scripts (common one or 
project´s repo?). It has been proposed but not decided.

Thanks,
Jose

 

> On 12 Jul 2017, at 20:10, Alec Hothan (ahothan)  wrote:
> 
> July/August is tricky with PTOs.
> Perhaps we should start the discussion by email on this mailer and discuss 
> about it in 2 weeks at the test-wg meeting? 
> Do you guys usually use a text document reviewed with gerrit to 
> discuss/collaborate on a spec? Or any other method? Please let me know and I 
> can get a head start on this.
> 
> Thanks
> 
>  Alec
> 
> On 7/12/17, 8:54 AM, "morgan.richo...@orange.com" 
>  wrote:
> 
>I will be in PTO too :)
> 
>Unfortunately the weekly meeting was today at 8 UTC (APAC slot)
>we will use the slot of tomorrow to organize an ad-hoc meeting with 
>Bitergia on result vizualization
>not sure we will have 15 minutes for another topic
> 
>It is maybe possible to organize an ad-hoc meeting on this topic after 
>the point with Bitergia?
> 
>Do not hesitate to modify directly the agenda at your convenience 
>(https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/Test+Working+Group+Weekly+Meeting)
> 
>/Morgan
> 
> 
> 
>On 12/07/2017 17:43, Alec Hothan (ahothan) wrote:
>> Morgan,
>> 
>> Unfortunately, I won’t be able to attend next week (on PTO).
>> Can this be squeezed into tomorrow’s meeting (July 13)? We could shorten it 
>> and follow up with a separate meeting or on email/IRC.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>>   Alec
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 7/12/17, 8:32 AM, "morgan.richo...@orange.com" 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> topic added for the next meeting (20th of July)
>> https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/Test+Working+Group+Weekly+Meeting
>> 
>> Mark and Jose are already involved in several activities dealing with
>> docker.
>> Cedric has a good view on this topic.
>> 
>> /Morgan
>> 
>> On 12/07/2017 17:27, Alec Hothan (ahothan) wrote:
>>> I’d like to add this topic to the next weekly meeting of the test-wg and 
>>> would like to know if anybody else from test-wg would be interested to help 
>>> redact a proposal for enhancing the docker container versioning and build 
>>> workflow in OPNFV. As I understand this will only concern a subset of test 
>>> projects for now at least.
>>> 
>>> To the agenda:
>>> - Problem statement for those who have not followed the email thread
>>> - General goals
>>> - Get feedback from current projects wrt current container versioning 
>>> scheme, Q
>>> - Who would like to participate and how to proceed
>>> We might need about 15’ to go over these points (no question we will need 
>>> more detailed discussion which can be better done through email or IRC 
>>> after that meeting).
>>> 
>>> What would be great is for those concerned project owners to think about 
>>> how the requirements of their respective project wrt to their container 
>>> versioning:
>>> - How often do you think you need to build your containers
>>> - Any hurdles experienced while building/managing container images
>>> - How do your container images relate to OPNFV releases (e.g. do you have a 
>>> 1 container version per release of do you prefer to have 1 version that 
>>> tackles all supported releases)
>>> - How do you “bundle” your containers to OPNFV releases (or how do your 
>>> users know what version of container to use for a given release)
>>> 
>>> We can also use email to get a head start or for those who cannot attend 
>>> the meeting.
>>> I hope we can get a draft proposal by early August.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>>   Alec
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 7/11/17, 8:29 AM, "Fatih Degirmenci"  wrote:
>>> 
>>> +1 to "Can we work on a proposal and get every project that deals with 
>>> containers involved?"
>>> 
>>> It is mainly test projects who use containers so I again let testing 
>>> community to take the lead and point you to where/how the conversation 
>>> started.
>>> 
>>> We can then try to generalize it later on.
>>> 
>>> /Fatih
>>> 
>>> On 11 Jul 2017, at 17:16, Alec Hothan (ahothan)  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Can we work on a proposal and get every project that deals with 
>>> containers involved?
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> test-wg mailing list
>>> test...@lists.opnfv.org
>>> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/test-wg
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Morgan Richomme
>> Orange/ IMT/ OLN/ CNC/ NCA/ SINA
>> 
>> Network architect for innovative services
>> Future of the Network community member
>> Open source Orange community manager
>> 
>> 
>> tel. +33 (0) 296 072 106
>>