Update patch set 6

Patch Set 6: (8 comments) Patch-set: 6 Attention: {"person_ident":"Gerrit User 11604 \u003c11604@4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543\u003e","operation":"ADD","reason":"\u003cGERRIT_ACCOUNT_16688\u003e replied on the change"} Attention: {"person_ident":"Gerrit User 16688 \u003c16688@4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543\u003e","operation":"REMOVE","reason":"\u003cGERRIT_ACCOUNT_16688\u003e replied on the change"}
2022-11-04 10:23:55 +00:00 · 2022-11-04 10:23:55 +00:00 · 1bd7c12da3
parent 6d8db2b0ee
commit 1bd7c12da3
3 changed files with 168 additions and 0 deletions
--- a/48
+++ b/48
@ -47,6 +47,30 @@
      "revId": "09ee72205f522b16261a4ae919e03511386c0e9d",
      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
    },
+    {
+      "unresolved": false,
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "cf72051d_f18608c1",
+        "filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
+        "patchSetId": 6
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 50,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 16688
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2022-11-04T10:23:55Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "As commented, I\u0027m proposing a config option [1] to define the RP name.\n\n[1]https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron/+/860639/8/neutron/conf/plugins/ml2/config.py",
+      "parentUuid": "3c583fa4_9d3f70d8",
+      "range": {
+        "startLine": 50,
+        "startChar": 62,
+        "endLine": 50,
+        "endChar": 74
+      },
+      "revId": "09ee72205f522b16261a4ae919e03511386c0e9d",
+      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
+    },
    {
      "unresolved": true,
      "key": {
@ -69,6 +93,30 @@
      },
      "revId": "09ee72205f522b16261a4ae919e03511386c0e9d",
      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
+    },
+    {
+      "unresolved": false,
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "feaa4fee_b46db5dd",
+        "filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
+        "patchSetId": 6
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 77,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 16688
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2022-11-04T10:23:55Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "In OVN we need to provide the tunnelled RP host assignation. That means:\n  resource_provider_hypervisors\u003dbr-ex:u20ovn;rp_tunnelled:u20ovn\"\n  \nWhen the OVN mech driver receives the \"open_vswitch\" register event, it can associate this RP with the host and create the corresponding RP tree.",
+      "parentUuid": "86c885c8_38338533",
+      "range": {
+        "startLine": 76,
+        "startChar": 0,
+        "endLine": 77,
+        "endChar": 53
+      },
+      "revId": "09ee72205f522b16261a4ae919e03511386c0e9d",
+      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
    }
  ]
 }
--- a/18
+++ b/18
@ -16,6 +16,24 @@
      "message": "you can probably drop one of the TUNNELLED words from the trait name.",
      "revId": "ad037f2c5d57565d4f88cf6094f9f9cf9204270f",
      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
+    },
+    {
+      "unresolved": false,
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "5a6e7861_97475dc9",
+        "filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
+        "patchSetId": 5
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 113,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 16688
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2022-11-04T10:23:55Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "But I need a unique prefix for this trait. I\u0027m building it this way:\nCUSTOM_ + TUNNELLED_ + \u003cRP-name\u003e\n\nOf course, the RP name is \"rp_tunnelled\", this is why we have this duplication. But I prefer that rather than allowing a user to override another trait.",
+      "parentUuid": "bf1c3090_17a457c7",
+      "revId": "ad037f2c5d57565d4f88cf6094f9f9cf9204270f",
+      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
    }
  ]
 }
--- a/102
+++ b/102
@ -70,6 +70,24 @@
      "revId": "c9a9703febc0f67e23536af42331483c85fb137e",
      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
    },
+    {
+      "unresolved": false,
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "e9eba511_5f7a7c16",
+        "filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
+        "patchSetId": 4
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 33,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 16688
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2022-11-04T10:23:55Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "The API [1] is for the QoS min BW rule support. But this is not related to the strict minium bandiwht feature. We of course use it for BW scheduling, but nothing else.\n\nIn Neutron we didn\u0027t support scheduling using ports in overlay networks. This is why I\u0027m introducing this RFE.\n\n[1]https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/neutron-specs/specs/newton/ml2-qos-minimum-egress-bw-support.html",
+      "parentUuid": "03af39a3_927912c0",
+      "revId": "c9a9703febc0f67e23536af42331483c85fb137e",
+      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
+    },
    {
      "unresolved": true,
      "key": {
@ -195,6 +213,24 @@
      "revId": "c9a9703febc0f67e23536af42331483c85fb137e",
      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
    },
+    {
+      "unresolved": false,
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "46aa6240_37981679",
+        "filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
+        "patchSetId": 4
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 46,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 16688
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2022-11-04T10:23:55Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "In this spec I\u0027m not considering the idea of having a shared RP for two network types. This is out of scope. This spec is adding the support for tunnelled networks only, as an independent HW resource. This spec does not consider (as it wasn\u0027t the original implementation of the BW aware scheduling in Neutron) sharing BW resources between networks.\n\nIn any case I would insist that the BW assignation is defined by the administrator. He/she would know how the underlying HW is configured and how it should be model.",
+      "parentUuid": "03052501_b4f8f9a6",
+      "revId": "c9a9703febc0f67e23536af42331483c85fb137e",
+      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
+    },
    {
      "unresolved": true,
      "key": {
@ -314,6 +350,30 @@
      "revId": "c9a9703febc0f67e23536af42331483c85fb137e",
      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
    },
+    {
+      "unresolved": false,
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "1cc0fb5c_9a944390",
+        "filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
+        "patchSetId": 4
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 55,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 16688
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2022-11-04T10:23:55Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "When vlan/flat networks will share BW with tunnelled ones?\n\nAbout \"tunnel_bandwidth_provider\", we have that in [1]. The RP name is configurable already. If this RP is not present in the \"resource_provider_bandwidths\" list, this host won\u0027t model the tunnelled networks (same as now).\n\n[1]https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron/+/860639/8/neutron/conf/plugins/ml2/config.py",
+      "parentUuid": "c0b28fbd_cf68a45c",
+      "range": {
+        "startLine": 55,
+        "startChar": 2,
+        "endLine": 55,
+        "endChar": 68
+      },
+      "revId": "c9a9703febc0f67e23536af42331483c85fb137e",
+      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
+    },
    {
      "unresolved": true,
      "key": {
@ -337,6 +397,30 @@
      "revId": "c9a9703febc0f67e23536af42331483c85fb137e",
      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
    },
+    {
+      "unresolved": false,
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "193ce1a2_048dff97",
+        "filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
+        "patchSetId": 4
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 73,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 16688
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2022-11-04T10:23:55Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "Of course but that is on the administrator responsibility. The RP BW definitions is a model of the real hardware deployment. As you commented, in the case of DPDK, the traffic is redirected via the physical bridge. This case is not covered by this feature because that means we are sharing a single HW resource with two resource providers. This is not even considered in the placement API.\n\nI would consider this case as a corner case.",
+      "parentUuid": "9bd4587c_61a6a631",
+      "range": {
+        "startLine": 72,
+        "startChar": 5,
+        "endLine": 73,
+        "endChar": 176
+      },
+      "revId": "c9a9703febc0f67e23536af42331483c85fb137e",
+      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
+    },
    {
      "unresolved": true,
      "key": {
@ -354,6 +438,24 @@
      "revId": "c9a9703febc0f67e23536af42331483c85fb137e",
      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
    },
+    {
+      "unresolved": false,
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "b57a58f0_8eeeca2f",
+        "filename": "specs/2023.1/strict-minimum-bandwidth-tunnelled-networks.rst",
+        "patchSetId": 4
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 93,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 16688
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2022-11-04T10:23:55Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "Yes, I would move the CUSTOM_VNIC_etc traits to constant ones in ostrait. That will require a migration process after that. But this is out of scope here.\n\nAbout the custom tunnelled networks trait, what I\u0027m thinking is about making it static, regardless of the RP name, and as you said adding it to ostraits.",
+      "parentUuid": "146b0fbe_c13de0aa",
+      "revId": "c9a9703febc0f67e23536af42331483c85fb137e",
+      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
+    },
    {
      "unresolved": true,
      "key": {