Antrea Community, 7 Jun 2021

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: Antrea Community Meeting 06/07/2021

Description

Antrea Community Meeting, June 7th 2021

A

So welcome everyone thanks for joining the distance of the andrea community meeting and today is uh monday june, the the 7th, if you are in united states, otherwise, if tuesday june, the 8th and for today, we don't really have any major topic in agenda uh just antonon as an ms, such an announcement to fee make regarding a feature freaks. So please enter and go ahead.

B

Yeah thanks elevator, it's going to be super quick. Let me share my screen for a second. There we go uh so the the last uh release was like a bit uh painful. I mean uh there's been a pattern with the last few releases.

B

I mean for a while now, where um we kind of like rush to merge pierre pr's at the very end, um and uh sometimes uh some bugs come up like the day of the release or the day before the release, and it's been a bit uh tough to make the releases on time and while we're supposed to make them on wednesdays.

B

In the middle of the week, um they've been like happening uh sometimes late on fridays, which is not ideal for for a release, because it's just because the weekend, and so in an effort to improve that and and curve that uh that trend. uh I think it may be a good idea to introduce, like a short feature, freeze period between before each release, so nothing that's going to drag on, but just like for the week preceding the scheduled release date.

B

We stop merging features into the release branch and we can only merge bug fixes um and I propose doing that- uh starting, not not with 1.2, because um we're already working on this release, but for the release after that which is going to be 1.3.

B

And uh yes that's about it. I hope it's gonna help uh spread code reviews uh across uh the entire release cycle and not like push everything to the very end. um So I said we try it for 1.3 and we see how it goes. Unless someone has a as an objection, in which case please either speak up now or leave a comment uh on the github.

B

A

I'm completely okay with the proposal makes sense to me.

A

I don't know if there is any other.

C

C

Yes, it makes sense to me too.

A

All right, it appears that, uh before the lazy consensus principle, every everyone in the call is either okay with the proposal or is uh neutral to the proposal, which means that the feature freeze will be introduced with this release or the next.

B

One, uh the next one 1.3 so yeah, we'll try it for 1.3 and if it, if it goes well, we'll uh we'll just add up that uh that system yeah.

A

Perfect thanks santana and moving on to the next topic, which I don't think we have. um I seem somehow to recall that there was probably some presentation.

A

That was a book for today, but unfortunately I didn't. I don't have any officially on anything officially on the agenda. I don't know we keep. Did we perhaps talk about presenting something today from somebody.

D

No, I think from beijing said we yeah. We have not presentation, maybe next and that's community meeting. Maybe we can share something about multi multicast multicast support, but maybe not this time.

A

Okay, great thanks. Okay, so is there any other topic that you would like to bring up today uh for discussion? Anything! That's bothering you anything that you would like to improve any idea. So let's say that we today we are moving very early into open discussion.

D

I'm not sure um chen. Do you want to share something about egress failover.

C

We already shared it in the. I think. Okay.

D

C

Before this one yeah, but there is indeed some changes since then, uh not sure if people are interested in the change, maybe I could uh have a quick introduction about the change about that sure.

A

Yeah, that would be great for me.

C

C

And if you remember in the in the session, we introduced the variable support for egress. We, I suppose, as I proposed to add a.

C

A field like like a fill uh uh state status to control the behavior of the egress and the it requires user to specify whether he or she wants the egress to flow over to another node when and how to assign to a node. If the.

C

If, if the node originally holds, crashed.

C

After that, engine has another proposal, and I think it makes sense it's made, because that typically you know cluster, we we may have some nodes uh in different subnets, so usually the eagles eyepiece will not be will not be in, um cannot work in all subnets. So typically, the iphs should be associated with a single subnet, and this single subnet, the nodes or in the single subnet in this subnet can be selected by some node selector.

C

So we create another object. uh Currently we call the external ip port we added. This prefix is because we want to differentiate this ib port from the product before we may have. We may have in the future, so uh users should provide an external ib port and in the spec of this type, before user can specify the ip range.

C

The app ranges can be in the format of cidr or appeal for start and nip addresses so and then user can specify a node selector, which means the eyepiece which are allocated from this port can only be assigned to this node this nodes and we also add a field to egress, to specify the external ip4, uh the the eagle, the egress ip should be a located phone.

C

Originally, the ip should be assigned by user manually and the ip must be configured on the on on onenote.

C

After introducing this field, user can leave the egress ip empty and we will have a controller to allocate one ip from this port and this and set this field uh in the data plane. We will have the answer agent to select one one owner for this egress and and configure this egress ip on its interface and if, if the owners field another, the other notes will uh react with re-elect another owner and reconfigure the this ip that the the remaining part, the the fellow apart, is the same as the.

C

The session I introduced the design so nothing changed, it's only the api changed and anyone has comments about this.

A

A

Well, the silence means that either everyone is okay with the change that you made agrees with it, or just like me did not fully understand. I will review the code on github, so yeah thanks attention for uh for discussing with the team, this change that has made it to the pr and any any comment on this topic.

A

I'll just wait a few seconds before moving on.

A

B

A

B

Sorry, I need some time to gather my thoughts. uh Does that mean that uh the user kind of like needs to label uh all the nodes right to to use that feature? I don't remember if there is like a standard label, that's applied to nodes.

C

uh No, if you are, if one, if you don't want to to to enable a flower for uh this egress, is he or she just want to just need to specify this external before? But before that uh an external before must be created, so we can only allocate dynamic ip from this port and user doesn't have to specify whether he want to heal once or not want to enable egress, because if external ibp is specified, this will be done automatically that because we already know the the uh the node the eligible notes of this ip.

C

So we will. We will select one owner from this, uh I so from this uh from this node port. So it is associated with this eastern ip4.

B

Oh and if it's neil, it means all the nodes. Okay, just address that yeah sounds good to.

B

C

To continue do you have further comments on this? I can't change.

E

uh Not really just for this semester, actually, I'm I was asking you know in the pr too, uh I'm just wondering: what's the convincing uh to select whether or the entities, because combat standpoint is using an empty selector for that right. Is that a connection? Oh it's! Okay. We also use video because I think you propose to use uh leo to express selecting all nodes.

C

Right you, you means by by empty. You means that the field must be specified and we must use uh appeal for characters to represent. Oh, no, something like this, that right right, okay, but but do you have any better meme for that by using neo yeah? If we just don't set it, do we want to give it another mean.

E

I don't know I mean.

C

uh Sure then, just let's just discuss this.

E

I just feel if you want to be complete same sweet same switch, also support beer, and but I got your point basically you're saying.

E

It doesn't work help um to support uh ipro is not any other summon.

B

Yeah, I just want to say that I find it hard to keep track of neil versus mt, like for things like network policies, and I think it's not like a an id or api design. So um if we could like have like the same meaning, I think that that would be helpful.

E

What do you mean we should use empty, something.

B

Either we uh we only accept one of them, or we say they mean the same thing: empty, selector and and uh uh missing field.

E

Okay, I don't really have a strong opinion.

E

If you believe another slide is a must, maybe we can just make it um non-optional and say uh you use empty standard interval.

C

Required not another point.

B

Yeah yeah that works for me too,.

C

Okay, let me check out the kubernetes api to confirm and sure I will update this thread.

E

And this will be in future, we can have other selectors well, we want to make this one optional.

C

C

Okay, so that's all for this future discussion.

A

Thank you, john, so uh next topic anyone would like to bring up anything else.

A

I also don't have anything else to bring up for today. So let's say I'll just wait, uh 15 seconds and if there is no more topic, no additional topic proposed. We can. uh We can close the meeting here. That will be a very short one.

A

And time is over, so I would like to thank everyone for attending uh thanks channel for this discussion of the changes in the quest feature, and I believe that is all for today. So thanks everyone for joining. I wish you a good evening good morning or a good afternoon.

A

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

D

A

Thank you, bye-bye.