[Starlingx-discuss] Analysis of patch 9f926a5 for StartlingX upstreaming

Fri Dec 7 14:19:46 UTC 2018

The change that is being reviewed here was originally a part of a larger commit (9f926a5d253<http://stash.wrs.com/projects/CGCS/repos/github.com.openstack.neutron/commits/9f926a5d2539b0b0451c50053244a8fa6c43bf3c>).   They should be implemented together or at least tested together.   I seem to remember that there was information missing in case 1 that prevented a proper FDB notification from being generated.

Please retest your scenarios and capture the input parameters to add_fdb_entries(), remove_fdb_entries(), and update_fdb_entries() in neutron/plugins/ml2/drivers/l2pop/rpc.py:L2populationAgentNotifyAPI to be sure that expected notifications are published.

Regards,
Allain

Allain Legacy, Software Developer, Wind River
direct 613.270.2279  fax 613.492.7870 skype allain.legacy
350 Terry Fox Drive, Suite 200, Ottawa, Ontario, K2K 2W5

[WIND]<http://www.windriver.com/>

From: Xu, Chenjie [mailto:chenjie.xu at intel.com]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2018 3:42 AM
To: Peters, Matt
Cc: starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io
Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] Analysis of patch 9f926a5 for StartlingX upstreaming

Hi Matt,
Ryan Tidwell comments on this patch and he thinks that AFTER_DELETE notification can be used to trigger l2pop.
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/611261/
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/611261/4/neutron/db/l3_db.py
From the comment in the following line:
https://github.com/starlingx-staging/stx-neutron/blob/master/neutron/services/l3_router/service_providers/l2pop.py#L276
It seems that  the router_id and port_id in AFTER_DELETE notification are None. As a result of that, the last_known_router_id and last_fixed_port_id should be used to construct FDB entries which are used to remove FDBs on each host. However, I print the notification in the following 2 cases:
Case-1:

1)       Allocate floating ip fip-1

2)       Associate fip-1 with vm-1

3)       Delete fip-1
Case-2:

1)       Allocate floating ip fip-1

2)       Associate fip-1 with vm-1

3)       Disassociate fip-1 with vm-1

4)       Delete fip-1
The notification for case1 and case 2 are attached. router_id and port_id are not None in case-1 and are None in case-2. Thus in case-1, AFTER_DELETE notification can be used. In case-2, FDB will be removed by step 3, thus no need to remove again.

Based on the above analysis, I think we can use AFTER_DELETE notification. Could you please comment and review?

Best Regards,
Xu, Chenjie

From: Peters, Matt [mailto:Matt.Peters at windriver.com]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 11:19 PM
To: Xu, Chenjie <chenjie.xu at intel.com<mailto:chenjie.xu at intel.com>>
Cc: starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io<mailto:starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>; Legacy, Allain <Allain.Legacy at windriver.com<mailto:Allain.Legacy at windriver.com>>
Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] Analysis of patch 9f926a5 for StartlingX upstreaming

Hi Chenjie,
The latest RFE looks good to me.

Regards, Matt

From: "Xu, Chenjie" <chenjie.xu at intel.com<mailto:chenjie.xu at intel.com>>
Date: Monday, November 12, 2018 at 1:23 AM
To: "Peters, Matt" <Matt.Peters at windriver.com<mailto:Matt.Peters at windriver.com>>
Cc: "starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io<mailto:starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>" <starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io<mailto:starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>>, Allain Legacy <Allain.Legacy at windriver.com<mailto:Allain.Legacy at windriver.com>>
Subject: RE: [Starlingx-discuss] Analysis of patch 9f926a5 for StartlingX upstreaming

Hi Matt,
The RFE has been updated and is attached. Could you please help review and comment?

Best Regards,
Xu, Chenjie

From: Peters, Matt [mailto:Matt.Peters at windriver.com]
Sent: Friday, November 9, 2018 9:22 PM
To: Xu, Chenjie <chenjie.xu at intel.com<mailto:chenjie.xu at intel.com>>; Legacy, Allain <Allain.Legacy at windriver.com<mailto:Allain.Legacy at windriver.com>>
Cc: starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io<mailto:starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>
Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] Analysis of patch 9f926a5 for StartlingX upstreaming

Hi Chenjie,
The RFE looks good.  The use cases are clear and detailed.
I only have a few minor review comments (see attached).

Regards, Matt

From: "Xu, Chenjie" <chenjie.xu at intel.com<mailto:chenjie.xu at intel.com>>
Date: Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 4:28 AM
To: "Peters, Matt" <Matt.Peters at windriver.com<mailto:Matt.Peters at windriver.com>>, Allain Legacy <Allain.Legacy at windriver.com<mailto:Allain.Legacy at windriver.com>>
Cc: "starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io<mailto:starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>" <starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io<mailto:starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>>
Subject: [Starlingx-discuss] Analysis of patch 9f926a5 for StartlingX upstreaming

Hi Matt/Allain,
We analyze the patch 9f926a5 related to l2pop. An RFE “Add l2pop support for floating ip resources” has been written and is attached. The test case is provided by Allain. Could you please help to review and comment? Thanks very much!

Best Regards,
Xu, Chenjie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.starlingx.io/pipermail/starlingx-discuss/attachments/20181207/2ae7b76f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1807 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://lists.starlingx.io/pipermail/starlingx-discuss/attachments/20181207/2ae7b76f/attachment-0001.png>