Date   
NO SAI community meeting on 9/12/2019

Xin Liu (CLOUD)
 

Folks:

We have finished NAT and drop counter proposal last week.

Agenda is very low. Therefore, cancel this week’s SAI community meeting.

 

 

Thanks

Xin

 

 

MoM of today's OCP SONiC call 9/10/2019

MSREDDY P <msreddy.paluru@...>
 

  • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  9/10/2019.

Topics discussed
  • Drop Counters HLD  - MSFT
Review (Q & A):
  • Does the design preserve the counters on warm reboots? No
  • Can the design reports the user if the drop counter is not supported with platforms? yes
  • List out the caveats with warm reboot cases. Ex: if the device went wrong after warm reboots, does the drop counters distinguish the failure reasons?
  • Do we have default settings for the debug counters with the device? No
  • Can the design provide any templates for the debug counters to configure it? 
  • Can the lifecycle (ex: clear)of these counters will not effect the existing counters? No
  • Can the design support logical/aggregate debug counters? 
  • Does these counters are ASIC independent? what platforms do you guys cover it?
  • Can this integrate with mgmt framework?

Thanks,
-Madhu

On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 9:22 AM MSREDDY P <msreddy.paluru@...> wrote:
  • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  9/3/2019.

Topics discussed
  • BGP Error handling  - BRCM  
Review (Q & A):
  • Is there any perf impact on disable this feature: No
  • Data shows the RIB-in convergence performance degradation is 44%, it should be linear, but why is 44%? can it be improved? 
  • What is the scope of the QuickTests? Is it covered only happy paths alone? do you have numbers with non-happy path scenarios? 
  • does the QuickTest covers both Ipv4 or Ipv6 ? QuickTest supports mix scenario of ipv4 & ipv6 ? not yet done for pure Ipv6 routes, will be explored.
  • do you have any special handling for default route ? No
  • Does it supports any debug commands check the failed route ? yes
  • What is the reconciliation on daemon crashes (Ex: BGP)- how to reconcile the routes? Please list out the scenarios in HLD.
  • Can this feature turn-off on demand ? is yes, can this affect the system stability? 
  • PR - https://github.com/Azure/SONiC/pull/424#pullrequestreview-283110975

Error Handling - BRCM

Review (Q & A):
  • Overall framework is thinking about two approaches - 1) Introduce Opaque ID to track the add-delete-add kind of error handling scenarios 2) Introduce an Sync SAI API in addition to current Async SAI API.
  • HLD is out for the community review. https://github.com/Azure/SONiC/pull/391

Thanks,
Madhu


    On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 7:19 AM MSREDDY P <msreddy.paluru@...> wrote:
    • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  8/27/2019.

    Topics discussed
    • Dynamic Port BreakOut HLD - LNKD 
    Review (Q & A):
    • Can't SONiC query SAI API to fetch the break out capabilities?
    • Generic question : Why breakout support only per interface? why can' t it per device ? Platform's don't allow certain ports due to silicon issues or the feature is not ready to use the breakout port on this relesase
    • Can the breakout feature supports range of ports together? 
    • Can ASIC vendors support breakout on range/group of ports?
    • What does platform vendors do to support this feature?  It seems vendors should provide platforms.ini file.
    • Can this feature support the list of breakout supported to the user? 
    • Can breakout feature enforce lanes and aliases to the sonic application?
    • Why can't we define platform files per HWSKU?  
    • Can this HLD covers Platform LED feature?
    • How about the configuration validations during port-breakout ? Can this integrate with MGMT framework CVL lib? yes.

    Thanks,
    Madhu


    • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  8/20/2019.

    Topics discussed
    • MC-LAG HLD - Nephos 
    Review (Q & A):
    • Can MC-LAG support on sub-port interfaces?
    • Update scope of L2/L3 MC-LAG in HLD. 
    • Can MCLAG supports multicast? 
    • Do you have scale numbers w.r.t FDB/ARP/Route sync between MC-LAG failures? 
    • How can we isolate the packet flooding between MCLAG vs NON-MCLAG in same broadcast domain? 
    • Update HLD with test cases for MC-LAG failover (link/node level) scenarios?

    Thanks,
    Madhu


    MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  8/13/2019.

    Topics discussed
    • Sonic management framework - BRCM & DELL
    Review (Q & A)
    • Can the click cli co-exists with mgmt-framework ? Yes.
    • Does mgmt framework support existing click cli commands ? yes, click based cli commnads will be migrated to klish based cli.
    • Can the click based cli deprecated ? No
    • Can the mgmt-framework supports the external AAA servers for authentication? pl add details to the HLD.
    • Add AAA auth failure work flow the REST SET work flow?
    • Does the mgmt framework handles the end to end error handling or feedback loop ? No, out of the scope.
    • Why are pulling telemetry container into mgmt container? We don't run multiple gNMI servers in SONIC, and requesting community to rename the sonic-telemetry server and make part of mgmt-framework.
    • Does output of click based CLI will be changed? 
    • Does the mgmt-framework supports the notion of start up config ? 
    • Does the mgmt framework supports the CLI show to reflect the configDB?
    • Can the mgmt-framework supports show running config ?
    • Feature timelines - the scope is proposing the mgmt framework and there will be seperate feature HLDs coming. 


    MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  8/6/2019.

    Topics discussed
    • Sub port interface design - Winda
    Review (Q & A)
    • How sub-port interface different from vlan interface in sonic? Ans: Vlan interface is a bridge port in sonic.
    • Rename dot1Q table ? - Since there is vlan interface table, dot1Q interface table is little confusing, community suggested go with sub-port/interface table.
    • How about separate sub-interface/port manager for sub-port interfaces?
    • Does sub-port feature use sonic-cli/direct native calls ? It uses linux iproute2 calls 
    • Do you expect iproute2 upgrades to support sub-port feature? No 
    • What is the use case of mtu with sub interface? 
    • Can sub-port interface support on port-breakout interfaces? 
    • Do you see any issues with naming convention w.r.t port breakouts & sub-ports?
    • Is there any limit on sub port interfaces? yes, refer scalability section [750 per switch]
    • Few question on sub-port functionality? If the packet entered untagged how does it route to sub-port interface?
    • what is the miss-policy support with sub-port interfaces ? could be dropped - debatable 
    • define behavior untagged and miss policy arrived to physical port? How Sonic process these packets?
    • Can physical & sub port interfaces shared same neighbor table or different ? 
    • Add section to the HLD for cross functional / port properties when port is layer 3/ layer 2 port? 


    Announcements:
    • 201908 release - will be delayed 10/2019
    • please send out PR's to sonic mailing lists 
    • OCP Amsterdam [Europe]- End of Sept.

    MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  07/23/2019.

    Topics discussed
    • Debug framework design spec - BRCM
    Review (Q & A)
    • What is the impact on current show tech dump ? 
    • Can the framework support get the tech dump specified time slice/range ? 
    • Does framework support any schema for debug event triggers ? 
    • Where does this framework run, can user turn off? 
    • Will the framework exports debug data in Json format? 

    MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  07/16/2019.

    Topics discussed
    • Egress Mirror support and ACL action capability check 
    Review (Q & A)
    • Does this feature backward compatible? Yes [sonic - to -sonic ]
    • Is there any requirement for egress mirroring to have all packet modifications done in the mirrored copy? No such support.
    • What is the behavior if max egress sessions programmed? - Not a requirement 
    • If both ingress/egress enabled on same packet, do we see two mirror copies? Yes, might need a fix around it.
    • Does SONiC has any limit on supporting egress mirror sessions? - depends on ASIC limit
    • Does this design supports truncate the mirrored copy ? Does it a SONiC/SAI spec? Need to check 

    • SONiC Image Build Time Improvements (MLNX)
    Review (Q & A)

    • Is the design use parallel builds? yes, make use of all the cpu threads (12) 
    • How much build time improvements we can see if we discount kernel? - ~1 h (we build linux built in separate thread)
    • How is different Docker build kit from docker natived?- DBK is completely written for docker images and supports isolated users instead multiple users.

      Announcements
      • 201908 release tracking
      • Repurposing the sub-group meetings to design meetings.

      MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  07/09/2019.

      Topics discussed

      • PDE (Platform Development Environment) /PDDF (Platform Driver Development Framework)- BRCM
      Review (Q&A)
      • Is PDE specific to BRCM chipset? Not necessarily, who ever supoport SAI can use it.
      • What are the interfaces PDE provides for ASIC and platform? PDDF data driven framework (JSON APIs)& existing driver API's
      • Can framework allow vendor extensions ? PDDF supports vendor extensions
      • How to package PDE ?  PDE can be built along with full sonic image & dockers or individual docker
      • Will custom plugins (ex:BMC) could integrate with PDE? yes
      • Can we load PDE into multiple targets? possible 

      Announcements
      • PR reviews ownership - checkout the 201908 release tracking page

      MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  06/25/2019.

      Topics discussed

      • VRF design discussion  - Nephos (Jeffrey) 
      Review (Q&A)
      • How does VRF configures in Linux kernel? As of now, though there is a CLI wrapper, SONiC ultimately uses the linux NetLink calls. [Community has some suggestions - Liat may help here with our examples]
      • Questions on config_db migration script on VRF config migration? offline discussions would continue/PR feedback.
      • Design decision behind creating an empty interface INTERFACE|Ethernet0:{} in config_db ? Multiple things, 1) SAI 2) Code complexity behind the resource migration. etc. There is a section in the PR,  feedback can be provided.
      • There is a request on VRF ID adding besides interface name in the next hop? The decision seems we are going with minimal configuration to support the SONiC system design.
      • Can we safely assume VRF design supports later versions of Linux Kernel 4.9? Yes. 
      What next? 
      • PR discussion could be extended to next meeting based on the PR feedback. [Jeffery/Prince]

      MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  06/18/2019.

      Topics discussed

      • Error Handling  - BRCM (Santhosh)
      Review (Q&A)
      We had a great discussion, there are lot of inputs from community and here is some. Feel free to add missing comments here.
      • How does framework supports multiple CRUD failures?  
      [Ben]: See below 
      • Do you provide a knob to switch off Error handling feature? Is knob necessary? 
      [Ben]: No knob is necessary. The error handling proposal is a framework that is available for a) implementation of error reporting in SWSS on a feature-by-feature basis and b) application processing of such errors. Both a) and b) are implementation choices that can be made on an feature-by-feature basis. And if an application does not want to process a supported error, then it can just ignore it. 
      • Does the applications get out of order notifications from feedback loop? How to handle in the case of it? Ex: User does create/delete/create and do you expect the error feedback come in order? 
      [Ben]: The specific comment was that the key/values used to refer to APP_DB (or other) in an ERROR_DB report may not be specific enough to distinguish between different error events. The example given (by Nikos) was a route add-withdraw-add case - since the APP_DB table entry may be the same between the 2 adds, then, if there's an error report, how does the application (FRR in this case) know which of the adds failed? We will come back on this point. 
      • What is the design decision behind a new Error DB? Why can't we merge error attributes into APP DB? 
      [Ben]: We thought about both options, and decided that the ERROR_DB gave a bit more flexibility and avoided changing existing application tables. It was not a clear decision, but we see no reason to move away from it. 
      • What is the mechanism to synchronize route CRUD between APP DB vs new Error DB? 
      [Ben]: See above 
      • Is new Error DB is a mirror of APP DB? 
      [Ben]: Not really - but each error table entry points to a corresponding entry in another table (usually APP_DB) 
      • The current design mentioned an approach to stop propagate the failed/error routes to the neighbors? This may not right as per RFC, the routes should propagate though the it failed due to some policy. (Nikos)
      [Ben]: This topic went beyond scope of the framework (#1 above) and into the BGP doc (#2). We will setup a separate offline discussion for this.
       
      Overall feedback - The feedback loop is necessary to address SAI fatal errors. However the community requested the design should dis associate/de couple the feedback loop  as much as possible so that applications have freedom to react/handle it own way.
      [Ben]: That's exactly how it's setup today. 
      one option suggested - Framework should more generic and should accommodate opaque error context for the applications. 
      [Ben]: This is a different topic - see above ("The specific comment was that the key/values ....")

      Xin will extend an offline discussion on this topic, stay tuned.


      Announcements 
      • SONiC Release 201908 tracking page - Xin can you post the link
      • Action Item for community - Signup for PR reviews

      MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  06/04/2019.

      Topics discussed
      • STP/PVST - Sandeep (BRCM)
      Q & A 
      • Can this STP feature compile time disabled? BRCM will explore this (compile time/run time options to disable/enable STP/PVST feature)
      • Warm reboot not supported for PVST? Community requested more details need to be added to design 
      • Multiple questions what is the design decision on why  STP states are not programming to Kernel?   Few questions: 1) With the current STP design - the STP states are not populating in kernel, ASIC and Kernel will be out of sync, what is the downside ?  2) Let's say Port/Vlan is not blocking in the kernel, but is blocked in ASIC, then what is the behavior with arp/ping/ospf in this scenarios ?  BRCM should document the scenarios.
      • Community requested to document the ASIC and Kernel out of sync scenarios - AI BRCM
      • There should be no drop if HW says forwarding? yes
      • Is there mechanism to program the states in to Kernel ? BRCM to explore on it
      • If the trap is configured on port which is blocked does the packet comes to CPU? yes, based on the trap configurations.
      • When port is blocked in HW, what are the packets should send? - HW shouldn't block L2 packets/LACP exchanges but drop L3 packets.
      • Can COPP program to trap to cpu ? Yes

      • HLD on NAT  - Kiran Kella (BRCM)

      Q & A 
      • Does it support payload/embedded headers (ALGs- application level gateways) support ? Not right now.
      • Continue discussion next sub group meeting. 
      Announcements 
      • Next sub group meetings HLD on NAT, SFLow 

      MoM of today's OCP SONiC SUB GROUP call  05/28/2019.

      Topics discussed:
      • Status on MLAG Design discussions - Nephos Team

      Q & A 
      • Does this solution addressed L3 MLAG alone? Both L3 and L2. It seems L2 MLAG HLD need some updates.
      • Does MCLAG supports MulitCast? Nephos team will update the HLD with all the use-cases and missing pieces.
      • When is the next meeting to discuss on MCLAG ? June 11th
      • Community requested Nephos team for Updated MCLAG HLD before Jun 11th. 

      Action Items/Announcements
      • Will it be possible to discuss other than MCLAG in SUB Group calls ? Yes. Xin we will work and adjust to the cadence
      • Community requested to include/Update User Scenarios in HLDs for review
      • Ben Gale (BRCM) will propose on MCLAG next few weeks. 
      • Request community to review below MCLAG PR before next sub group meeting (06/11/2019)
      • Here is the PR and design presentation
        1.  MCLAG video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shFEKjBp66Q&feature=youtu.be
        2.  MCLAG PR - https://github.com/Azure/SONiC/pull/325

      MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  05/21/2019.

      Topics discussed
      • L2 - FDB/MAC enhancements - Anil (Broadcom)

      Q & A 
      • FDB aging per device ? yes 
      • Does FDB aging support per sec ? yes 
      • Can MAC aging support per port and VLAN ? Anil will add support to the proposal 
      • Design on restrict the warning logs on VLAN range feature support? Broadcom will consider this in the proposal [Aggregated log etc.]
      • Does this feature need  SAI support from vendors ? (no new SAI attributes), Broadcom will list SAI APIs using it currently for this feature.
      • How does Vlan range updates implemented? vlan range being consolidated at config_db and apply down to the hardware in single shot, no deletes and adds.
      • Do we have FDB type in the fdb entry ? yes [static vs dynamic] and will be displayed in show commands
      • How does FDB optimizations on topo/STP event flush ? out side of ASIC, in the case of broadcom flushes are quick.  
      • How does system wide fdb flush ? It should handled by SAI, by go over all the ports and Vlans, vendor specific. 
      • Community ask on MAC aging & MAC move scale numbers? Broadcom will add into the proposal 

      • BFD - Sumit Agarwal (Broadcom)
      Q & A 

      • Discussed on BFD implementations phase 1  & Phase 2. 
      • In BFD Phase-1 : BFD is part of BGP docker
      • In BFD Phase 2 : BFD will implement in Hardware. 
      • Can SONiC Users turn off if they don't want? yes through compile time, but community suggested don't run default, provide CLI to enable it.
      • How BFD works with warm reboots ? 1) planned warm reboot, users can update the BFD timers upfront 2) unplanned warm reboot BFD session will timeout before BGP timeouts. 
      • Can configure/control BFD timeouts on remote Bgp peers? Question from Nikos. Need discussion more.
      Announcements 

      • More design reviews lineup for Aug 2019.
      • Provide feedbacks on PRs 
      • Watch out for bi weekly meeting on design proposals and reviews.
      MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  05/07/2019.

      Topics discussed
      • SONiC 201908 release Planning - 05/07/2019

      Q & A 
      • Need code review support for multi-db performance improvements - MSFT & AVIZ Networks
      • What is the scope of Error handling mechanism work by BRCM  - It covers SAI error surfacing and handling
      • What is the scope of Configuration validations - Open for design, current scope is use syslog mechanism to propagate the config errors.
      • What is the VRF feature planned in SONiC? it is VRF lite support not the MPLS. 
      • Do we have plan for multi-tenancy VPN with VRF feature? No, that would be handles separately.
      • When is the VRF lite design review - Expected 5/21
      • What is the ETA for dynamic breakout - Xin will work with LNKD
      • For dynamic breakout, is it possible to get ASIC vendor ETA ? Xin will talk to ASIC vendors [an ETA early July would help to test it]
      • Do we have a list of platform APIs ? refer PMON APIs
      • How to earn OCP credits for companies - Checkout the OCP website for how to get credits to such as software contributions etc.
      • Is sub-port feature is same as sub-interface ? yes 
      • What kind of features run on sub-port? No HLD yet, Jipan will come back with HLD on this
      • Can we have small description on sub-port ? Xin will work with Alibaba
      • When is the SAI proposal on sFlow? Dell working on the SAI proposal for sFlow and will send for design review.
      • What does SONiC side use for slow ? HSflowD, its a opensource package and need to check the licensing [Need to explore the licensing part, work with Xin]
      • Build improvements - experimental BRCM ? design review needed on the changes. Ben will provide a design review
      • What is Mgmt framework - Goal is to easily manage the sonic switch? [models, serialization, unified cli, gnmi]
      • What is the BFD for FRR used for - for BGP failures
      • Does BFD-FRR required SAI support ? No, for the current work, not using any SAI BFD APIs, will be using on next iteration.
      • Does SONiC official release support on ONL ? No, SONiC has tight roadmap next 8 months.

      Announcements 
      • OCP events - www.opencompute.org/events/upcoming events - road show  Taiwan, Beijing, India
      • SONiC next meeting 05/21/2019 
      • SONiC team will use Workgroup meetings other alternative Tuesday [Test workgroups & MLAG/L2 workgroups etc. ]
      APR release 
      • Redis performance - out of the apr release
      • CLI improvement - moved to next release
      • Any ETA for APR release stabilizations - need to estimate 

       

      Re: Announcement: SONiC Newsletter August 2019

      Xin Liu (CLOUD)
       

      +OCP-Networking

       

      @All,  if you have any SONiC/SAI related news would like to share with the community, please feel free to contact Kannan and me, we can include it to the newsletter.

       

      Thanks

      Xin

      PS. We will add a link to the SONiC Web.

       

      From: Kannan.Kvs@... <Kannan.Kvs@...>
      Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 12:45 PM
      To: sonicproject@...
      Cc: Xin Liu (CLOUD) <xinxliu@...>
      Subject: Announcement: SONiC Newsletter August 2019

       

      Dell Customer Communication - Confidential

       

      Dear community : 

      We are pleased to release the SONiC newsletter for the month of August2019 that explains the recent happenings in SONiC.

      https://azure.github.io/SONiC/pdf/newsletters/SONiC_newsletter_2019_08.pdf


      This being the first newsletter, we have covered the recent happenings from April2019.

      Community members are requested to go through them and provide the feedback that shall be used for the upcoming newsletters.


      Thanks 
      Kannan and Xin 

      SONiC community meeting agenda - 9/10/2019

      Xin Liu (CLOUD)
       

      Folks:

      In tomorrow’s community meeting, we will review “Configurable Drop Counters in SONiC” HLD.

       

      https://github.com/Azure/SONiC/blob/11959b204f2ca2d06dff1d7e3ba204900e7b5013/doc/drop_counters/drop_counters_HLD.md

       

       

      Meeting invite in the attachment.

       

       

      Thanks,

      Xin

       

      Re: Reminder - OCP Networking Project Meeting on Monday 10:00am PST September 9, 2019

      Scott Emery
       

      Whoops, I meant 10:00am, as usual, not 100:00am.

      Scott

      On 9/9/19 8:11 AM, Scott Emery via Groups.Io wrote:
      All,

      Just a reminder that we have our monthly OCP Networking project call today, Monday, September 9, 2019 at 100:00am pacific time. Here is the agenda:

      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wDPws4RE-JyeH8U72D6Ee4Yt6ppNdM5Qu3eMeyX1jm8/edit?usp=sharing

      Go To Meeting access link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/526674629

      Information: http://www.opencompute.org/wiki/Networking/MonthlyCalls

      Scott and Omar



      Reminder - OCP Networking Project Meeting on Monday 10:00am PST September 9, 2019

      Scott Emery
       

      All,

      Just a reminder that we have our monthly OCP Networking project call today, Monday, September 9, 2019 at 100:00am pacific time. Here is the agenda:

      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wDPws4RE-JyeH8U72D6Ee4Yt6ppNdM5Qu3eMeyX1jm8/edit?usp=sharing

      Go To Meeting access link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/526674629

      Information: http://www.opencompute.org/wiki/Networking/MonthlyCalls

      Scott and Omar

      Re: [MASSMAIL][OCP-Networking] Scaling issues with Netlink sockets

      Marcin Kuczera
       

      On 2019-09-04 02:51, via Groups.Io wrote:
      Hi,

      We are seeing issues in scaled configurations (Portchannels with > 3K VLAN ports etc), where a lot of netlink socket messages are dropped by the kernel, because applications like teamd is not able process them fast enough compared to the rate at which they are sent by the kernel. This looks like a common issue and hence checking with the community if there are any solutions that have been tried out that has worked well.

      Scale makes the difference... good test environment !
      I'am curious, are these applications in C code or Python ?
      Other observation, on Extreme Networks switches, we have noticed, that L2 only VLANs configured on switch - broadcast (and unknown dst) packets are, no matter if it is L2 or L3 interface equipped VLAN - all bcasts/unkdst are sent to CPU.
      In normal conditions it didn't cause any visible problems, but, once we made some mirror off traffic where ETH DST was unknown for switch, the traffic had been hited CPU with speed of 900Mbit/s and it cause a problem with SNMP process, that was often unable to respond, and you could forget about snmpwalk..
      The switch was old, x650, however - if all broadcasts/unknow dst unicasts (and some multicasts) hit CPU in case of pure L2 vlan - maybe it is the way to cut such traffic in such condition to save some resources..

      Regards,
      Marcin



      Thanks,
      Guru.


      --

      Marcin Kuczera / Wiceprezes Zarządu / CTO
      +48 32 440 80 71/

      Leon Sp. z o.o.
      ul. Kilińskiego 33d, 44-200 Rybnik
      http://www.leon.pl/

      INTERNET | TELEWIZJA | TELEFON

      KRS 0000223101 Sąd Rejonowy w Gliwicach
      Kapitał zakładowy 576.700 zł
      NIP: 6332068698

      Scaling issues with Netlink sockets

      Guru Harakere <guru.harakere@...>
       

      Hi,

      We are seeing issues in scaled configurations (Portchannels with > 3K VLAN ports etc), where a lot of netlink socket messages are dropped by the kernel, because applications like teamd is not able process them fast enough compared to the rate at which they are sent by the kernel. This looks like a common issue and hence checking with the community if there are any solutions that have been tried out that has worked well.

      Thanks,
      Guru.

      MoM of today's OCP SONiC call 9/3/2019

      MSREDDY P <msreddy.paluru@...>
       

      • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  9/3/2019.

      Topics discussed
      • BGP Error handling  - BRCM  
      Review (Q & A):
      • Is there any perf impact on disable this feature: No
      • Data shows the RIB-in convergence performance degradation is 44%, it should be linear, but why is 44%? can it be improved? 
      • What is the scope of the QuickTests? Is it covered only happy paths alone? do you have numbers with non-happy path scenarios? 
      • does the QuickTest covers both Ipv4 or Ipv6 ? QuickTest supports mix scenario of ipv4 & ipv6 ? not yet done for pure Ipv6 routes, will be explored.
      • do you have any special handling for default route ? No
      • Does it supports any debug commands check the failed route ? yes
      • What is the reconciliation on daemon crashes (Ex: BGP)- how to reconcile the routes? Please list out the scenarios in HLD.
      • Can this feature turn-off on demand ? is yes, can this affect the system stability? 
      • PR - https://github.com/Azure/SONiC/pull/424#pullrequestreview-283110975

      Error Handling - BRCM

      Review (Q & A):
      • Overall framework is thinking about two approaches - 1) Introduce Opaque ID to track the add-delete-add kind of error handling scenarios 2) Introduce an Sync SAI API in addition to current Async SAI API.
      • HLD is out for the community review. https://github.com/Azure/SONiC/pull/391

      Thanks,
      Madhu


        On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 7:19 AM MSREDDY P <msreddy.paluru@...> wrote:
        • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  8/27/2019.

        Topics discussed
        • Dynamic Port BreakOut HLD - LNKD 
        Review (Q & A):
        • Can't SONiC query SAI API to fetch the break out capabilities?
        • Generic question : Why breakout support only per interface? why can' t it per device ? Platform's don't allow certain ports due to silicon issues or the feature is not ready to use the breakout port on this relesase
        • Can the breakout feature supports range of ports together? 
        • Can ASIC vendors support breakout on range/group of ports?
        • What does platform vendors do to support this feature?  It seems vendors should provide platforms.ini file.
        • Can this feature support the list of breakout supported to the user? 
        • Can breakout feature enforce lanes and aliases to the sonic application?
        • Why can't we define platform files per HWSKU?  
        • Can this HLD covers Platform LED feature?
        • How about the configuration validations during port-breakout ? Can this integrate with MGMT framework CVL lib? yes.

        Thanks,
        Madhu


        • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  8/20/2019.

        Topics discussed
        • MC-LAG HLD - Nephos 
        Review (Q & A):
        • Can MC-LAG support on sub-port interfaces?
        • Update scope of L2/L3 MC-LAG in HLD. 
        • Can MCLAG supports multicast? 
        • Do you have scale numbers w.r.t FDB/ARP/Route sync between MC-LAG failures? 
        • How can we isolate the packet flooding between MCLAG vs NON-MCLAG in same broadcast domain? 
        • Update HLD with test cases for MC-LAG failover (link/node level) scenarios?

        Thanks,
        Madhu


        MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  8/13/2019.

        Topics discussed
        • Sonic management framework - BRCM & DELL
        Review (Q & A)
        • Can the click cli co-exists with mgmt-framework ? Yes.
        • Does mgmt framework support existing click cli commands ? yes, click based cli commnads will be migrated to klish based cli.
        • Can the click based cli deprecated ? No
        • Can the mgmt-framework supports the external AAA servers for authentication? pl add details to the HLD.
        • Add AAA auth failure work flow the REST SET work flow?
        • Does the mgmt framework handles the end to end error handling or feedback loop ? No, out of the scope.
        • Why are pulling telemetry container into mgmt container? We don't run multiple gNMI servers in SONIC, and requesting community to rename the sonic-telemetry server and make part of mgmt-framework.
        • Does output of click based CLI will be changed? 
        • Does the mgmt-framework supports the notion of start up config ? 
        • Does the mgmt framework supports the CLI show to reflect the configDB?
        • Can the mgmt-framework supports show running config ?
        • Feature timelines - the scope is proposing the mgmt framework and there will be seperate feature HLDs coming. 


        MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  8/6/2019.

        Topics discussed
        • Sub port interface design - Winda
        Review (Q & A)
        • How sub-port interface different from vlan interface in sonic? Ans: Vlan interface is a bridge port in sonic.
        • Rename dot1Q table ? - Since there is vlan interface table, dot1Q interface table is little confusing, community suggested go with sub-port/interface table.
        • How about separate sub-interface/port manager for sub-port interfaces?
        • Does sub-port feature use sonic-cli/direct native calls ? It uses linux iproute2 calls 
        • Do you expect iproute2 upgrades to support sub-port feature? No 
        • What is the use case of mtu with sub interface? 
        • Can sub-port interface support on port-breakout interfaces? 
        • Do you see any issues with naming convention w.r.t port breakouts & sub-ports?
        • Is there any limit on sub port interfaces? yes, refer scalability section [750 per switch]
        • Few question on sub-port functionality? If the packet entered untagged how does it route to sub-port interface?
        • what is the miss-policy support with sub-port interfaces ? could be dropped - debatable 
        • define behavior untagged and miss policy arrived to physical port? How Sonic process these packets?
        • Can physical & sub port interfaces shared same neighbor table or different ? 
        • Add section to the HLD for cross functional / port properties when port is layer 3/ layer 2 port? 


        Announcements:
        • 201908 release - will be delayed 10/2019
        • please send out PR's to sonic mailing lists 
        • OCP Amsterdam [Europe]- End of Sept.

        MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  07/23/2019.

        Topics discussed
        • Debug framework design spec - BRCM
        Review (Q & A)
        • What is the impact on current show tech dump ? 
        • Can the framework support get the tech dump specified time slice/range ? 
        • Does framework support any schema for debug event triggers ? 
        • Where does this framework run, can user turn off? 
        • Will the framework exports debug data in Json format? 

        MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  07/16/2019.

        Topics discussed
        • Egress Mirror support and ACL action capability check 
        Review (Q & A)
        • Does this feature backward compatible? Yes [sonic - to -sonic ]
        • Is there any requirement for egress mirroring to have all packet modifications done in the mirrored copy? No such support.
        • What is the behavior if max egress sessions programmed? - Not a requirement 
        • If both ingress/egress enabled on same packet, do we see two mirror copies? Yes, might need a fix around it.
        • Does SONiC has any limit on supporting egress mirror sessions? - depends on ASIC limit
        • Does this design supports truncate the mirrored copy ? Does it a SONiC/SAI spec? Need to check 

        • SONiC Image Build Time Improvements (MLNX)
        Review (Q & A)

        • Is the design use parallel builds? yes, make use of all the cpu threads (12) 
        • How much build time improvements we can see if we discount kernel? - ~1 h (we build linux built in separate thread)
        • How is different Docker build kit from docker natived?- DBK is completely written for docker images and supports isolated users instead multiple users.

          Announcements
          • 201908 release tracking
          • Repurposing the sub-group meetings to design meetings.

          MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  07/09/2019.

          Topics discussed

          • PDE (Platform Development Environment) /PDDF (Platform Driver Development Framework)- BRCM
          Review (Q&A)
          • Is PDE specific to BRCM chipset? Not necessarily, who ever supoport SAI can use it.
          • What are the interfaces PDE provides for ASIC and platform? PDDF data driven framework (JSON APIs)& existing driver API's
          • Can framework allow vendor extensions ? PDDF supports vendor extensions
          • How to package PDE ?  PDE can be built along with full sonic image & dockers or individual docker
          • Will custom plugins (ex:BMC) could integrate with PDE? yes
          • Can we load PDE into multiple targets? possible 

          Announcements
          • PR reviews ownership - checkout the 201908 release tracking page

          MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  06/25/2019.

          Topics discussed

          • VRF design discussion  - Nephos (Jeffrey) 
          Review (Q&A)
          • How does VRF configures in Linux kernel? As of now, though there is a CLI wrapper, SONiC ultimately uses the linux NetLink calls. [Community has some suggestions - Liat may help here with our examples]
          • Questions on config_db migration script on VRF config migration? offline discussions would continue/PR feedback.
          • Design decision behind creating an empty interface INTERFACE|Ethernet0:{} in config_db ? Multiple things, 1) SAI 2) Code complexity behind the resource migration. etc. There is a section in the PR,  feedback can be provided.
          • There is a request on VRF ID adding besides interface name in the next hop? The decision seems we are going with minimal configuration to support the SONiC system design.
          • Can we safely assume VRF design supports later versions of Linux Kernel 4.9? Yes. 
          What next? 
          • PR discussion could be extended to next meeting based on the PR feedback. [Jeffery/Prince]

          MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  06/18/2019.

          Topics discussed

          • Error Handling  - BRCM (Santhosh)
          Review (Q&A)
          We had a great discussion, there are lot of inputs from community and here is some. Feel free to add missing comments here.
          • How does framework supports multiple CRUD failures?  
          [Ben]: See below 
          • Do you provide a knob to switch off Error handling feature? Is knob necessary? 
          [Ben]: No knob is necessary. The error handling proposal is a framework that is available for a) implementation of error reporting in SWSS on a feature-by-feature basis and b) application processing of such errors. Both a) and b) are implementation choices that can be made on an feature-by-feature basis. And if an application does not want to process a supported error, then it can just ignore it. 
          • Does the applications get out of order notifications from feedback loop? How to handle in the case of it? Ex: User does create/delete/create and do you expect the error feedback come in order? 
          [Ben]: The specific comment was that the key/values used to refer to APP_DB (or other) in an ERROR_DB report may not be specific enough to distinguish between different error events. The example given (by Nikos) was a route add-withdraw-add case - since the APP_DB table entry may be the same between the 2 adds, then, if there's an error report, how does the application (FRR in this case) know which of the adds failed? We will come back on this point. 
          • What is the design decision behind a new Error DB? Why can't we merge error attributes into APP DB? 
          [Ben]: We thought about both options, and decided that the ERROR_DB gave a bit more flexibility and avoided changing existing application tables. It was not a clear decision, but we see no reason to move away from it. 
          • What is the mechanism to synchronize route CRUD between APP DB vs new Error DB? 
          [Ben]: See above 
          • Is new Error DB is a mirror of APP DB? 
          [Ben]: Not really - but each error table entry points to a corresponding entry in another table (usually APP_DB) 
          • The current design mentioned an approach to stop propagate the failed/error routes to the neighbors? This may not right as per RFC, the routes should propagate though the it failed due to some policy. (Nikos)
          [Ben]: This topic went beyond scope of the framework (#1 above) and into the BGP doc (#2). We will setup a separate offline discussion for this.
           
          Overall feedback - The feedback loop is necessary to address SAI fatal errors. However the community requested the design should dis associate/de couple the feedback loop  as much as possible so that applications have freedom to react/handle it own way.
          [Ben]: That's exactly how it's setup today. 
          one option suggested - Framework should more generic and should accommodate opaque error context for the applications. 
          [Ben]: This is a different topic - see above ("The specific comment was that the key/values ....")

          Xin will extend an offline discussion on this topic, stay tuned.


          Announcements 
          • SONiC Release 201908 tracking page - Xin can you post the link
          • Action Item for community - Signup for PR reviews

          MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  06/04/2019.

          Topics discussed
          • STP/PVST - Sandeep (BRCM)
          Q & A 
          • Can this STP feature compile time disabled? BRCM will explore this (compile time/run time options to disable/enable STP/PVST feature)
          • Warm reboot not supported for PVST? Community requested more details need to be added to design 
          • Multiple questions what is the design decision on why  STP states are not programming to Kernel?   Few questions: 1) With the current STP design - the STP states are not populating in kernel, ASIC and Kernel will be out of sync, what is the downside ?  2) Let's say Port/Vlan is not blocking in the kernel, but is blocked in ASIC, then what is the behavior with arp/ping/ospf in this scenarios ?  BRCM should document the scenarios.
          • Community requested to document the ASIC and Kernel out of sync scenarios - AI BRCM
          • There should be no drop if HW says forwarding? yes
          • Is there mechanism to program the states in to Kernel ? BRCM to explore on it
          • If the trap is configured on port which is blocked does the packet comes to CPU? yes, based on the trap configurations.
          • When port is blocked in HW, what are the packets should send? - HW shouldn't block L2 packets/LACP exchanges but drop L3 packets.
          • Can COPP program to trap to cpu ? Yes

          • HLD on NAT  - Kiran Kella (BRCM)

          Q & A 
          • Does it support payload/embedded headers (ALGs- application level gateways) support ? Not right now.
          • Continue discussion next sub group meeting. 
          Announcements 
          • Next sub group meetings HLD on NAT, SFLow 

          MoM of today's OCP SONiC SUB GROUP call  05/28/2019.

          Topics discussed:
          • Status on MLAG Design discussions - Nephos Team

          Q & A 
          • Does this solution addressed L3 MLAG alone? Both L3 and L2. It seems L2 MLAG HLD need some updates.
          • Does MCLAG supports MulitCast? Nephos team will update the HLD with all the use-cases and missing pieces.
          • When is the next meeting to discuss on MCLAG ? June 11th
          • Community requested Nephos team for Updated MCLAG HLD before Jun 11th. 

          Action Items/Announcements
          • Will it be possible to discuss other than MCLAG in SUB Group calls ? Yes. Xin we will work and adjust to the cadence
          • Community requested to include/Update User Scenarios in HLDs for review
          • Ben Gale (BRCM) will propose on MCLAG next few weeks. 
          • Request community to review below MCLAG PR before next sub group meeting (06/11/2019)
          • Here is the PR and design presentation
            1.  MCLAG video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shFEKjBp66Q&feature=youtu.be
            2.  MCLAG PR - https://github.com/Azure/SONiC/pull/325

          MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  05/21/2019.

          Topics discussed
          • L2 - FDB/MAC enhancements - Anil (Broadcom)

          Q & A 
          • FDB aging per device ? yes 
          • Does FDB aging support per sec ? yes 
          • Can MAC aging support per port and VLAN ? Anil will add support to the proposal 
          • Design on restrict the warning logs on VLAN range feature support? Broadcom will consider this in the proposal [Aggregated log etc.]
          • Does this feature need  SAI support from vendors ? (no new SAI attributes), Broadcom will list SAI APIs using it currently for this feature.
          • How does Vlan range updates implemented? vlan range being consolidated at config_db and apply down to the hardware in single shot, no deletes and adds.
          • Do we have FDB type in the fdb entry ? yes [static vs dynamic] and will be displayed in show commands
          • How does FDB optimizations on topo/STP event flush ? out side of ASIC, in the case of broadcom flushes are quick.  
          • How does system wide fdb flush ? It should handled by SAI, by go over all the ports and Vlans, vendor specific. 
          • Community ask on MAC aging & MAC move scale numbers? Broadcom will add into the proposal 

          • BFD - Sumit Agarwal (Broadcom)
          Q & A 

          • Discussed on BFD implementations phase 1  & Phase 2. 
          • In BFD Phase-1 : BFD is part of BGP docker
          • In BFD Phase 2 : BFD will implement in Hardware. 
          • Can SONiC Users turn off if they don't want? yes through compile time, but community suggested don't run default, provide CLI to enable it.
          • How BFD works with warm reboots ? 1) planned warm reboot, users can update the BFD timers upfront 2) unplanned warm reboot BFD session will timeout before BGP timeouts. 
          • Can configure/control BFD timeouts on remote Bgp peers? Question from Nikos. Need discussion more.
          Announcements 

          • More design reviews lineup for Aug 2019.
          • Provide feedbacks on PRs 
          • Watch out for bi weekly meeting on design proposals and reviews.
          MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  05/07/2019.

          Topics discussed
          • SONiC 201908 release Planning - 05/07/2019

          Q & A 
          • Need code review support for multi-db performance improvements - MSFT & AVIZ Networks
          • What is the scope of Error handling mechanism work by BRCM  - It covers SAI error surfacing and handling
          • What is the scope of Configuration validations - Open for design, current scope is use syslog mechanism to propagate the config errors.
          • What is the VRF feature planned in SONiC? it is VRF lite support not the MPLS. 
          • Do we have plan for multi-tenancy VPN with VRF feature? No, that would be handles separately.
          • When is the VRF lite design review - Expected 5/21
          • What is the ETA for dynamic breakout - Xin will work with LNKD
          • For dynamic breakout, is it possible to get ASIC vendor ETA ? Xin will talk to ASIC vendors [an ETA early July would help to test it]
          • Do we have a list of platform APIs ? refer PMON APIs
          • How to earn OCP credits for companies - Checkout the OCP website for how to get credits to such as software contributions etc.
          • Is sub-port feature is same as sub-interface ? yes 
          • What kind of features run on sub-port? No HLD yet, Jipan will come back with HLD on this
          • Can we have small description on sub-port ? Xin will work with Alibaba
          • When is the SAI proposal on sFlow? Dell working on the SAI proposal for sFlow and will send for design review.
          • What does SONiC side use for slow ? HSflowD, its a opensource package and need to check the licensing [Need to explore the licensing part, work with Xin]
          • Build improvements - experimental BRCM ? design review needed on the changes. Ben will provide a design review
          • What is Mgmt framework - Goal is to easily manage the sonic switch? [models, serialization, unified cli, gnmi]
          • What is the BFD for FRR used for - for BGP failures
          • Does BFD-FRR required SAI support ? No, for the current work, not using any SAI BFD APIs, will be using on next iteration.
          • Does SONiC official release support on ONL ? No, SONiC has tight roadmap next 8 months.

          Announcements 
          • OCP events - www.opencompute.org/events/upcoming events - road show  Taiwan, Beijing, India
          • SONiC next meeting 05/21/2019 
          • SONiC team will use Workgroup meetings other alternative Tuesday [Test workgroups & MLAG/L2 workgroups etc. ]
          APR release 
          • Redis performance - out of the apr release
          • CLI improvement - moved to next release
          • Any ETA for APR release stabilizations - need to estimate 

           

          Re: SONiC community meeting agenda - 9/3/2019

          Ben Gale <ben.gale@...>
           

          Xin/All,

          Just a quick heads-up for the "Error Handling" section today. This is a follow-up to the session we did on this topic on Jun 18th on the below PRs. At that session there were the following main pieces of feedback: -
          - Provide an on/off knob (default off) so that upgrading customers don't observe any unwanted change
          - Optionally change application behavior from advertize-install-withdraw to install-then-advertize to use this feature

          These items have been handled and the PR updated. We will touch on this at the call today.

          2) Error handling framework - https://github.com/Azure/SONiC/pull/391
          - Add an opaque application ID to fully disambiguate application operations

          This is one is deferred for now. We have made several attempts to come up with a solution to this, most notably passing this value across sai_redis. However there is a parallel effort underway to look at making sai_redis a synchronous interface, and we will re-visit this topic as that progresses.

          Thanks,

          Ben

          On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 7:08 PM Xin Liu (CLOUD) <xinxliu@...> wrote:

          Folks:

          In tomorrow’s SONiC community meeting, we will discuss

                        - Error Handling revisited led by BRCM

                        - If time allows, we will continue reviewing  management framework HLD (https://github.com/Azure/SONiC/pull/436)

           

          Meeting invitation attached.

          Rita will host the community meeting.

           

          Thanks

          Xin

          SONiC community meeting agenda - 9/3/2019

          Xin Liu (CLOUD)
           

          Folks:

          In tomorrow’s SONiC community meeting, we will discuss

                        - Error Handling revisited led by BRCM

                        - If time allows, we will continue reviewing  management framework HLD (https://github.com/Azure/SONiC/pull/436)

           

          Meeting invitation attached.

          Rita will host the community meeting.

           

          Thanks

          Xin

          MoM of today's OCP SONiC call 8/27/2019

          MSREDDY P <msreddy.paluru@...>
           

          • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  8/27/2019.

          Topics discussed
          • Dynamic Port BreakOut HLD - LNKD 
          Review (Q & A):
          • Can't SONiC query SAI API to fetch the break out capabilities?
          • Generic question : Why breakout support only per interface? why can' t it per device ? Platform's don't allow certain ports due to silicon issues or the feature is not ready to use the breakout port on this relesase
          • Can the breakout feature supports range of ports together? 
          • Can ASIC vendors support breakout on range/group of ports?
          • What does platform vendors do to support this feature?  It seems vendors should provide platforms.ini file.
          • Can this feature support the list of breakout supported to the user? 
          • Can breakout feature enforce lanes and aliases to the sonic application?
          • Why can't we define platform files per HWSKU?  
          • Can this HLD covers Platform LED feature?
          • How about the configuration validations during port-breakout ? Can this integrate with MGMT framework CVL lib? yes.

          Thanks,
          Madhu


          • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  8/20/2019.

          Topics discussed
          • MC-LAG HLD - Nephos 
          Review (Q & A):
          • Can MC-LAG support on sub-port interfaces?
          • Update scope of L2/L3 MC-LAG in HLD. 
          • Can MCLAG supports multicast? 
          • Do you have scale numbers w.r.t FDB/ARP/Route sync between MC-LAG failures? 
          • How can we isolate the packet flooding between MCLAG vs NON-MCLAG in same broadcast domain? 
          • Update HLD with test cases for MC-LAG failover (link/node level) scenarios?

          Thanks,
          Madhu


          MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  8/13/2019.

          Topics discussed
          • Sonic management framework - BRCM & DELL
          Review (Q & A)
          • Can the click cli co-exists with mgmt-framework ? Yes.
          • Does mgmt framework support existing click cli commands ? yes, click based cli commnads will be migrated to klish based cli.
          • Can the click based cli deprecated ? No
          • Can the mgmt-framework supports the external AAA servers for authentication? pl add details to the HLD.
          • Add AAA auth failure work flow the REST SET work flow?
          • Does the mgmt framework handles the end to end error handling or feedback loop ? No, out of the scope.
          • Why are pulling telemetry container into mgmt container? We don't run multiple gNMI servers in SONIC, and requesting community to rename the sonic-telemetry server and make part of mgmt-framework.
          • Does output of click based CLI will be changed? 
          • Does the mgmt-framework supports the notion of start up config ? 
          • Does the mgmt framework supports the CLI show to reflect the configDB?
          • Can the mgmt-framework supports show running config ?
          • Feature timelines - the scope is proposing the mgmt framework and there will be seperate feature HLDs coming. 


          MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  8/6/2019.

          Topics discussed
          • Sub port interface design - Winda
          Review (Q & A)
          • How sub-port interface different from vlan interface in sonic? Ans: Vlan interface is a bridge port in sonic.
          • Rename dot1Q table ? - Since there is vlan interface table, dot1Q interface table is little confusing, community suggested go with sub-port/interface table.
          • How about separate sub-interface/port manager for sub-port interfaces?
          • Does sub-port feature use sonic-cli/direct native calls ? It uses linux iproute2 calls 
          • Do you expect iproute2 upgrades to support sub-port feature? No 
          • What is the use case of mtu with sub interface? 
          • Can sub-port interface support on port-breakout interfaces? 
          • Do you see any issues with naming convention w.r.t port breakouts & sub-ports?
          • Is there any limit on sub port interfaces? yes, refer scalability section [750 per switch]
          • Few question on sub-port functionality? If the packet entered untagged how does it route to sub-port interface?
          • what is the miss-policy support with sub-port interfaces ? could be dropped - debatable 
          • define behavior untagged and miss policy arrived to physical port? How Sonic process these packets?
          • Can physical & sub port interfaces shared same neighbor table or different ? 
          • Add section to the HLD for cross functional / port properties when port is layer 3/ layer 2 port? 


          Announcements:
          • 201908 release - will be delayed 10/2019
          • please send out PR's to sonic mailing lists 
          • OCP Amsterdam [Europe]- End of Sept.

          MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  07/23/2019.

          Topics discussed
          • Debug framework design spec - BRCM
          Review (Q & A)
          • What is the impact on current show tech dump ? 
          • Can the framework support get the tech dump specified time slice/range ? 
          • Does framework support any schema for debug event triggers ? 
          • Where does this framework run, can user turn off? 
          • Will the framework exports debug data in Json format? 

          MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  07/16/2019.

          Topics discussed
          • Egress Mirror support and ACL action capability check 
          Review (Q & A)
          • Does this feature backward compatible? Yes [sonic - to -sonic ]
          • Is there any requirement for egress mirroring to have all packet modifications done in the mirrored copy? No such support.
          • What is the behavior if max egress sessions programmed? - Not a requirement 
          • If both ingress/egress enabled on same packet, do we see two mirror copies? Yes, might need a fix around it.
          • Does SONiC has any limit on supporting egress mirror sessions? - depends on ASIC limit
          • Does this design supports truncate the mirrored copy ? Does it a SONiC/SAI spec? Need to check 

          • SONiC Image Build Time Improvements (MLNX)
          Review (Q & A)

          • Is the design use parallel builds? yes, make use of all the cpu threads (12) 
          • How much build time improvements we can see if we discount kernel? - ~1 h (we build linux built in separate thread)
          • How is different Docker build kit from docker natived?- DBK is completely written for docker images and supports isolated users instead multiple users.

            Announcements
            • 201908 release tracking
            • Repurposing the sub-group meetings to design meetings.

            MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  07/09/2019.

            Topics discussed

            • PDE (Platform Development Environment) /PDDF (Platform Driver Development Framework)- BRCM
            Review (Q&A)
            • Is PDE specific to BRCM chipset? Not necessarily, who ever supoport SAI can use it.
            • What are the interfaces PDE provides for ASIC and platform? PDDF data driven framework (JSON APIs)& existing driver API's
            • Can framework allow vendor extensions ? PDDF supports vendor extensions
            • How to package PDE ?  PDE can be built along with full sonic image & dockers or individual docker
            • Will custom plugins (ex:BMC) could integrate with PDE? yes
            • Can we load PDE into multiple targets? possible 

            Announcements
            • PR reviews ownership - checkout the 201908 release tracking page

            MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  06/25/2019.

            Topics discussed

            • VRF design discussion  - Nephos (Jeffrey) 
            Review (Q&A)
            • How does VRF configures in Linux kernel? As of now, though there is a CLI wrapper, SONiC ultimately uses the linux NetLink calls. [Community has some suggestions - Liat may help here with our examples]
            • Questions on config_db migration script on VRF config migration? offline discussions would continue/PR feedback.
            • Design decision behind creating an empty interface INTERFACE|Ethernet0:{} in config_db ? Multiple things, 1) SAI 2) Code complexity behind the resource migration. etc. There is a section in the PR,  feedback can be provided.
            • There is a request on VRF ID adding besides interface name in the next hop? The decision seems we are going with minimal configuration to support the SONiC system design.
            • Can we safely assume VRF design supports later versions of Linux Kernel 4.9? Yes. 
            What next? 
            • PR discussion could be extended to next meeting based on the PR feedback. [Jeffery/Prince]

            MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  06/18/2019.

            Topics discussed

            • Error Handling  - BRCM (Santhosh)
            Review (Q&A)
            We had a great discussion, there are lot of inputs from community and here is some. Feel free to add missing comments here.
            • How does framework supports multiple CRUD failures?  
            [Ben]: See below 
            • Do you provide a knob to switch off Error handling feature? Is knob necessary? 
            [Ben]: No knob is necessary. The error handling proposal is a framework that is available for a) implementation of error reporting in SWSS on a feature-by-feature basis and b) application processing of such errors. Both a) and b) are implementation choices that can be made on an feature-by-feature basis. And if an application does not want to process a supported error, then it can just ignore it. 
            • Does the applications get out of order notifications from feedback loop? How to handle in the case of it? Ex: User does create/delete/create and do you expect the error feedback come in order? 
            [Ben]: The specific comment was that the key/values used to refer to APP_DB (or other) in an ERROR_DB report may not be specific enough to distinguish between different error events. The example given (by Nikos) was a route add-withdraw-add case - since the APP_DB table entry may be the same between the 2 adds, then, if there's an error report, how does the application (FRR in this case) know which of the adds failed? We will come back on this point. 
            • What is the design decision behind a new Error DB? Why can't we merge error attributes into APP DB? 
            [Ben]: We thought about both options, and decided that the ERROR_DB gave a bit more flexibility and avoided changing existing application tables. It was not a clear decision, but we see no reason to move away from it. 
            • What is the mechanism to synchronize route CRUD between APP DB vs new Error DB? 
            [Ben]: See above 
            • Is new Error DB is a mirror of APP DB? 
            [Ben]: Not really - but each error table entry points to a corresponding entry in another table (usually APP_DB) 
            • The current design mentioned an approach to stop propagate the failed/error routes to the neighbors? This may not right as per RFC, the routes should propagate though the it failed due to some policy. (Nikos)
            [Ben]: This topic went beyond scope of the framework (#1 above) and into the BGP doc (#2). We will setup a separate offline discussion for this.
             
            Overall feedback - The feedback loop is necessary to address SAI fatal errors. However the community requested the design should dis associate/de couple the feedback loop  as much as possible so that applications have freedom to react/handle it own way.
            [Ben]: That's exactly how it's setup today. 
            one option suggested - Framework should more generic and should accommodate opaque error context for the applications. 
            [Ben]: This is a different topic - see above ("The specific comment was that the key/values ....")

            Xin will extend an offline discussion on this topic, stay tuned.


            Announcements 
            • SONiC Release 201908 tracking page - Xin can you post the link
            • Action Item for community - Signup for PR reviews

            MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  06/04/2019.

            Topics discussed
            • STP/PVST - Sandeep (BRCM)
            Q & A 
            • Can this STP feature compile time disabled? BRCM will explore this (compile time/run time options to disable/enable STP/PVST feature)
            • Warm reboot not supported for PVST? Community requested more details need to be added to design 
            • Multiple questions what is the design decision on why  STP states are not programming to Kernel?   Few questions: 1) With the current STP design - the STP states are not populating in kernel, ASIC and Kernel will be out of sync, what is the downside ?  2) Let's say Port/Vlan is not blocking in the kernel, but is blocked in ASIC, then what is the behavior with arp/ping/ospf in this scenarios ?  BRCM should document the scenarios.
            • Community requested to document the ASIC and Kernel out of sync scenarios - AI BRCM
            • There should be no drop if HW says forwarding? yes
            • Is there mechanism to program the states in to Kernel ? BRCM to explore on it
            • If the trap is configured on port which is blocked does the packet comes to CPU? yes, based on the trap configurations.
            • When port is blocked in HW, what are the packets should send? - HW shouldn't block L2 packets/LACP exchanges but drop L3 packets.
            • Can COPP program to trap to cpu ? Yes

            • HLD on NAT  - Kiran Kella (BRCM)

            Q & A 
            • Does it support payload/embedded headers (ALGs- application level gateways) support ? Not right now.
            • Continue discussion next sub group meeting. 
            Announcements 
            • Next sub group meetings HLD on NAT, SFLow 

            MoM of today's OCP SONiC SUB GROUP call  05/28/2019.

            Topics discussed:
            • Status on MLAG Design discussions - Nephos Team

            Q & A 
            • Does this solution addressed L3 MLAG alone? Both L3 and L2. It seems L2 MLAG HLD need some updates.
            • Does MCLAG supports MulitCast? Nephos team will update the HLD with all the use-cases and missing pieces.
            • When is the next meeting to discuss on MCLAG ? June 11th
            • Community requested Nephos team for Updated MCLAG HLD before Jun 11th. 

            Action Items/Announcements
            • Will it be possible to discuss other than MCLAG in SUB Group calls ? Yes. Xin we will work and adjust to the cadence
            • Community requested to include/Update User Scenarios in HLDs for review
            • Ben Gale (BRCM) will propose on MCLAG next few weeks. 
            • Request community to review below MCLAG PR before next sub group meeting (06/11/2019)
            • Here is the PR and design presentation
              1.  MCLAG video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shFEKjBp66Q&feature=youtu.be
              2.  MCLAG PR - https://github.com/Azure/SONiC/pull/325

            MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  05/21/2019.

            Topics discussed
            • L2 - FDB/MAC enhancements - Anil (Broadcom)

            Q & A 
            • FDB aging per device ? yes 
            • Does FDB aging support per sec ? yes 
            • Can MAC aging support per port and VLAN ? Anil will add support to the proposal 
            • Design on restrict the warning logs on VLAN range feature support? Broadcom will consider this in the proposal [Aggregated log etc.]
            • Does this feature need  SAI support from vendors ? (no new SAI attributes), Broadcom will list SAI APIs using it currently for this feature.
            • How does Vlan range updates implemented? vlan range being consolidated at config_db and apply down to the hardware in single shot, no deletes and adds.
            • Do we have FDB type in the fdb entry ? yes [static vs dynamic] and will be displayed in show commands
            • How does FDB optimizations on topo/STP event flush ? out side of ASIC, in the case of broadcom flushes are quick.  
            • How does system wide fdb flush ? It should handled by SAI, by go over all the ports and Vlans, vendor specific. 
            • Community ask on MAC aging & MAC move scale numbers? Broadcom will add into the proposal 

            • BFD - Sumit Agarwal (Broadcom)
            Q & A 

            • Discussed on BFD implementations phase 1  & Phase 2. 
            • In BFD Phase-1 : BFD is part of BGP docker
            • In BFD Phase 2 : BFD will implement in Hardware. 
            • Can SONiC Users turn off if they don't want? yes through compile time, but community suggested don't run default, provide CLI to enable it.
            • How BFD works with warm reboots ? 1) planned warm reboot, users can update the BFD timers upfront 2) unplanned warm reboot BFD session will timeout before BGP timeouts. 
            • Can configure/control BFD timeouts on remote Bgp peers? Question from Nikos. Need discussion more.
            Announcements 

            • More design reviews lineup for Aug 2019.
            • Provide feedbacks on PRs 
            • Watch out for bi weekly meeting on design proposals and reviews.
            MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  05/07/2019.

            Topics discussed
            • SONiC 201908 release Planning - 05/07/2019

            Q & A 
            • Need code review support for multi-db performance improvements - MSFT & AVIZ Networks
            • What is the scope of Error handling mechanism work by BRCM  - It covers SAI error surfacing and handling
            • What is the scope of Configuration validations - Open for design, current scope is use syslog mechanism to propagate the config errors.
            • What is the VRF feature planned in SONiC? it is VRF lite support not the MPLS. 
            • Do we have plan for multi-tenancy VPN with VRF feature? No, that would be handles separately.
            • When is the VRF lite design review - Expected 5/21
            • What is the ETA for dynamic breakout - Xin will work with LNKD
            • For dynamic breakout, is it possible to get ASIC vendor ETA ? Xin will talk to ASIC vendors [an ETA early July would help to test it]
            • Do we have a list of platform APIs ? refer PMON APIs
            • How to earn OCP credits for companies - Checkout the OCP website for how to get credits to such as software contributions etc.
            • Is sub-port feature is same as sub-interface ? yes 
            • What kind of features run on sub-port? No HLD yet, Jipan will come back with HLD on this
            • Can we have small description on sub-port ? Xin will work with Alibaba
            • When is the SAI proposal on sFlow? Dell working on the SAI proposal for sFlow and will send for design review.
            • What does SONiC side use for slow ? HSflowD, its a opensource package and need to check the licensing [Need to explore the licensing part, work with Xin]
            • Build improvements - experimental BRCM ? design review needed on the changes. Ben will provide a design review
            • What is Mgmt framework - Goal is to easily manage the sonic switch? [models, serialization, unified cli, gnmi]
            • What is the BFD for FRR used for - for BGP failures
            • Does BFD-FRR required SAI support ? No, for the current work, not using any SAI BFD APIs, will be using on next iteration.
            • Does SONiC official release support on ONL ? No, SONiC has tight roadmap next 8 months.

            Announcements 
            • OCP events - www.opencompute.org/events/upcoming events - road show  Taiwan, Beijing, India
            • SONiC next meeting 05/21/2019 
            • SONiC team will use Workgroup meetings other alternative Tuesday [Test workgroups & MLAG/L2 workgroups etc. ]
            APR release 
            • Redis performance - out of the apr release
            • CLI improvement - moved to next release
            • Any ETA for APR release stabilizations - need to estimate 

             

            SONiC community meeting agenda - 8/27/2019

            Xin Liu (CLOUD)
             

            Folks:

            In tomorrow’s SONiC community meeting, LNKD will lead  Dynamic Break Out Discussion.

                          - HLD is here:  https://github.com/Azure/SONiC/pull/450

             

            Meeting invite attached.

            See you tomorrow.

             

            Xin

             

            MoM of today's OCP SONiC call 8/20/2019

            Madhu paluru <msreddy.paluru@...>
             

            • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  8/20/2019.

            Topics discussed
            • MC-LAG HLD - Nephos 
            Review (Q & A):
            • Can MC-LAG support on sub-port interfaces?
            • Update scope of L2/L3 MC-LAG in HLD. 
            • Can MCLAG supports multicast? 
            • Do you have scale numbers w.r.t FDB/ARP/Route sync between MC-LAG failures? 
            • How can we isolate the packet flooding between MCLAG vs NON-MCLAG in same broadcast domain? 
            • Update HLD with test cases for MC-LAG failover (link/node level) scenarios?

            Thanks,
            Madhu


            MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  8/13/2019.

            Topics discussed
            • Sonic management framework - BRCM & DELL
            Review (Q & A)
            • Can the click cli co-exists with mgmt-framework ? Yes.
            • Does mgmt framework support existing click cli commands ? yes, click based cli commnads will be migrated to klish based cli.
            • Can the click based cli deprecated ? No
            • Can the mgmt-framework supports the external AAA servers for authentication? pl add details to the HLD.
            • Add AAA auth failure work flow the REST SET work flow?
            • Does the mgmt framework handles the end to end error handling or feedback loop ? No, out of the scope.
            • Why are pulling telemetry container into mgmt container? We don't run multiple gNMI servers in SONIC, and requesting community to rename the sonic-telemetry server and make part of mgmt-framework.
            • Does output of click based CLI will be changed? 
            • Does the mgmt-framework supports the notion of start up config ? 
            • Does the mgmt framework supports the CLI show to reflect the configDB?
            • Can the mgmt-framework supports show running config ?
            • Feature timelines - the scope is proposing the mgmt framework and there will be seperate feature HLDs coming. 


            MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  8/6/2019.

            Topics discussed
            • Sub port interface design - Winda
            Review (Q & A)
            • How sub-port interface different from vlan interface in sonic? Ans: Vlan interface is a bridge port in sonic.
            • Rename dot1Q table ? - Since there is vlan interface table, dot1Q interface table is little confusing, community suggested go with sub-port/interface table.
            • How about separate sub-interface/port manager for sub-port interfaces?
            • Does sub-port feature use sonic-cli/direct native calls ? It uses linux iproute2 calls 
            • Do you expect iproute2 upgrades to support sub-port feature? No 
            • What is the use case of mtu with sub interface? 
            • Can sub-port interface support on port-breakout interfaces? 
            • Do you see any issues with naming convention w.r.t port breakouts & sub-ports?
            • Is there any limit on sub port interfaces? yes, refer scalability section [750 per switch]
            • Few question on sub-port functionality? If the packet entered untagged how does it route to sub-port interface?
            • what is the miss-policy support with sub-port interfaces ? could be dropped - debatable 
            • define behavior untagged and miss policy arrived to physical port? How Sonic process these packets?
            • Can physical & sub port interfaces shared same neighbor table or different ? 
            • Add section to the HLD for cross functional / port properties when port is layer 3/ layer 2 port? 


            Announcements:
            • 201908 release - will be delayed 10/2019
            • please send out PR's to sonic mailing lists 
            • OCP Amsterdam [Europe]- End of Sept.

            MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  07/23/2019.

            Topics discussed
            • Debug framework design spec - BRCM
            Review (Q & A)
            • What is the impact on current show tech dump ? 
            • Can the framework support get the tech dump specified time slice/range ? 
            • Does framework support any schema for debug event triggers ? 
            • Where does this framework run, can user turn off? 
            • Will the framework exports debug data in Json format? 

            MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  07/16/2019.

            Topics discussed
            • Egress Mirror support and ACL action capability check 
            Review (Q & A)
            • Does this feature backward compatible? Yes [sonic - to -sonic ]
            • Is there any requirement for egress mirroring to have all packet modifications done in the mirrored copy? No such support.
            • What is the behavior if max egress sessions programmed? - Not a requirement 
            • If both ingress/egress enabled on same packet, do we see two mirror copies? Yes, might need a fix around it.
            • Does SONiC has any limit on supporting egress mirror sessions? - depends on ASIC limit
            • Does this design supports truncate the mirrored copy ? Does it a SONiC/SAI spec? Need to check 

            • SONiC Image Build Time Improvements (MLNX)
            Review (Q & A)

            • Is the design use parallel builds? yes, make use of all the cpu threads (12) 
            • How much build time improvements we can see if we discount kernel? - ~1 h (we build linux built in separate thread)
            • How is different Docker build kit from docker natived?- DBK is completely written for docker images and supports isolated users instead multiple users.

              Announcements
              • 201908 release tracking
              • Repurposing the sub-group meetings to design meetings.

              MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  07/09/2019.

              Topics discussed

              • PDE (Platform Development Environment) /PDDF (Platform Driver Development Framework)- BRCM
              Review (Q&A)
              • Is PDE specific to BRCM chipset? Not necessarily, who ever supoport SAI can use it.
              • What are the interfaces PDE provides for ASIC and platform? PDDF data driven framework (JSON APIs)& existing driver API's
              • Can framework allow vendor extensions ? PDDF supports vendor extensions
              • How to package PDE ?  PDE can be built along with full sonic image & dockers or individual docker
              • Will custom plugins (ex:BMC) could integrate with PDE? yes
              • Can we load PDE into multiple targets? possible 

              Announcements
              • PR reviews ownership - checkout the 201908 release tracking page

              MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  06/25/2019.

              Topics discussed

              • VRF design discussion  - Nephos (Jeffrey) 
              Review (Q&A)
              • How does VRF configures in Linux kernel? As of now, though there is a CLI wrapper, SONiC ultimately uses the linux NetLink calls. [Community has some suggestions - Liat may help here with our examples]
              • Questions on config_db migration script on VRF config migration? offline discussions would continue/PR feedback.
              • Design decision behind creating an empty interface INTERFACE|Ethernet0:{} in config_db ? Multiple things, 1) SAI 2) Code complexity behind the resource migration. etc. There is a section in the PR,  feedback can be provided.
              • There is a request on VRF ID adding besides interface name in the next hop? The decision seems we are going with minimal configuration to support the SONiC system design.
              • Can we safely assume VRF design supports later versions of Linux Kernel 4.9? Yes. 
              What next? 
              • PR discussion could be extended to next meeting based on the PR feedback. [Jeffery/Prince]

              MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  06/18/2019.

              Topics discussed

              • Error Handling  - BRCM (Santhosh)
              Review (Q&A)
              We had a great discussion, there are lot of inputs from community and here is some. Feel free to add missing comments here.
              • How does framework supports multiple CRUD failures?  
              [Ben]: See below 
              • Do you provide a knob to switch off Error handling feature? Is knob necessary? 
              [Ben]: No knob is necessary. The error handling proposal is a framework that is available for a) implementation of error reporting in SWSS on a feature-by-feature basis and b) application processing of such errors. Both a) and b) are implementation choices that can be made on an feature-by-feature basis. And if an application does not want to process a supported error, then it can just ignore it. 
              • Does the applications get out of order notifications from feedback loop? How to handle in the case of it? Ex: User does create/delete/create and do you expect the error feedback come in order? 
              [Ben]: The specific comment was that the key/values used to refer to APP_DB (or other) in an ERROR_DB report may not be specific enough to distinguish between different error events. The example given (by Nikos) was a route add-withdraw-add case - since the APP_DB table entry may be the same between the 2 adds, then, if there's an error report, how does the application (FRR in this case) know which of the adds failed? We will come back on this point. 
              • What is the design decision behind a new Error DB? Why can't we merge error attributes into APP DB? 
              [Ben]: We thought about both options, and decided that the ERROR_DB gave a bit more flexibility and avoided changing existing application tables. It was not a clear decision, but we see no reason to move away from it. 
              • What is the mechanism to synchronize route CRUD between APP DB vs new Error DB? 
              [Ben]: See above 
              • Is new Error DB is a mirror of APP DB? 
              [Ben]: Not really - but each error table entry points to a corresponding entry in another table (usually APP_DB) 
              • The current design mentioned an approach to stop propagate the failed/error routes to the neighbors? This may not right as per RFC, the routes should propagate though the it failed due to some policy. (Nikos)
              [Ben]: This topic went beyond scope of the framework (#1 above) and into the BGP doc (#2). We will setup a separate offline discussion for this.
               
              Overall feedback - The feedback loop is necessary to address SAI fatal errors. However the community requested the design should dis associate/de couple the feedback loop  as much as possible so that applications have freedom to react/handle it own way.
              [Ben]: That's exactly how it's setup today. 
              one option suggested - Framework should more generic and should accommodate opaque error context for the applications. 
              [Ben]: This is a different topic - see above ("The specific comment was that the key/values ....")

              Xin will extend an offline discussion on this topic, stay tuned.


              Announcements 
              • SONiC Release 201908 tracking page - Xin can you post the link
              • Action Item for community - Signup for PR reviews

              MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  06/04/2019.

              Topics discussed
              • STP/PVST - Sandeep (BRCM)
              Q & A 
              • Can this STP feature compile time disabled? BRCM will explore this (compile time/run time options to disable/enable STP/PVST feature)
              • Warm reboot not supported for PVST? Community requested more details need to be added to design 
              • Multiple questions what is the design decision on why  STP states are not programming to Kernel?   Few questions: 1) With the current STP design - the STP states are not populating in kernel, ASIC and Kernel will be out of sync, what is the downside ?  2) Let's say Port/Vlan is not blocking in the kernel, but is blocked in ASIC, then what is the behavior with arp/ping/ospf in this scenarios ?  BRCM should document the scenarios.
              • Community requested to document the ASIC and Kernel out of sync scenarios - AI BRCM
              • There should be no drop if HW says forwarding? yes
              • Is there mechanism to program the states in to Kernel ? BRCM to explore on it
              • If the trap is configured on port which is blocked does the packet comes to CPU? yes, based on the trap configurations.
              • When port is blocked in HW, what are the packets should send? - HW shouldn't block L2 packets/LACP exchanges but drop L3 packets.
              • Can COPP program to trap to cpu ? Yes

              • HLD on NAT  - Kiran Kella (BRCM)

              Q & A 
              • Does it support payload/embedded headers (ALGs- application level gateways) support ? Not right now.
              • Continue discussion next sub group meeting. 
              Announcements 
              • Next sub group meetings HLD on NAT, SFLow 

              MoM of today's OCP SONiC SUB GROUP call  05/28/2019.

              Topics discussed:
              • Status on MLAG Design discussions - Nephos Team

              Q & A 
              • Does this solution addressed L3 MLAG alone? Both L3 and L2. It seems L2 MLAG HLD need some updates.
              • Does MCLAG supports MulitCast? Nephos team will update the HLD with all the use-cases and missing pieces.
              • When is the next meeting to discuss on MCLAG ? June 11th
              • Community requested Nephos team for Updated MCLAG HLD before Jun 11th. 

              Action Items/Announcements
              • Will it be possible to discuss other than MCLAG in SUB Group calls ? Yes. Xin we will work and adjust to the cadence
              • Community requested to include/Update User Scenarios in HLDs for review
              • Ben Gale (BRCM) will propose on MCLAG next few weeks. 
              • Request community to review below MCLAG PR before next sub group meeting (06/11/2019)
              • Here is the PR and design presentation
                1.  MCLAG video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shFEKjBp66Q&feature=youtu.be
                2.  MCLAG PR - https://github.com/Azure/SONiC/pull/325

              MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  05/21/2019.

              Topics discussed
              • L2 - FDB/MAC enhancements - Anil (Broadcom)

              Q & A 
              • FDB aging per device ? yes 
              • Does FDB aging support per sec ? yes 
              • Can MAC aging support per port and VLAN ? Anil will add support to the proposal 
              • Design on restrict the warning logs on VLAN range feature support? Broadcom will consider this in the proposal [Aggregated log etc.]
              • Does this feature need  SAI support from vendors ? (no new SAI attributes), Broadcom will list SAI APIs using it currently for this feature.
              • How does Vlan range updates implemented? vlan range being consolidated at config_db and apply down to the hardware in single shot, no deletes and adds.
              • Do we have FDB type in the fdb entry ? yes [static vs dynamic] and will be displayed in show commands
              • How does FDB optimizations on topo/STP event flush ? out side of ASIC, in the case of broadcom flushes are quick.  
              • How does system wide fdb flush ? It should handled by SAI, by go over all the ports and Vlans, vendor specific. 
              • Community ask on MAC aging & MAC move scale numbers? Broadcom will add into the proposal 

              • BFD - Sumit Agarwal (Broadcom)
              Q & A 

              • Discussed on BFD implementations phase 1  & Phase 2. 
              • In BFD Phase-1 : BFD is part of BGP docker
              • In BFD Phase 2 : BFD will implement in Hardware. 
              • Can SONiC Users turn off if they don't want? yes through compile time, but community suggested don't run default, provide CLI to enable it.
              • How BFD works with warm reboots ? 1) planned warm reboot, users can update the BFD timers upfront 2) unplanned warm reboot BFD session will timeout before BGP timeouts. 
              • Can configure/control BFD timeouts on remote Bgp peers? Question from Nikos. Need discussion more.
              Announcements 

              • More design reviews lineup for Aug 2019.
              • Provide feedbacks on PRs 
              • Watch out for bi weekly meeting on design proposals and reviews.
              MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  05/07/2019.

              Topics discussed
              • SONiC 201908 release Planning - 05/07/2019

              Q & A 
              • Need code review support for multi-db performance improvements - MSFT & AVIZ Networks
              • What is the scope of Error handling mechanism work by BRCM  - It covers SAI error surfacing and handling
              • What is the scope of Configuration validations - Open for design, current scope is use syslog mechanism to propagate the config errors.
              • What is the VRF feature planned in SONiC? it is VRF lite support not the MPLS. 
              • Do we have plan for multi-tenancy VPN with VRF feature? No, that would be handles separately.
              • When is the VRF lite design review - Expected 5/21
              • What is the ETA for dynamic breakout - Xin will work with LNKD
              • For dynamic breakout, is it possible to get ASIC vendor ETA ? Xin will talk to ASIC vendors [an ETA early July would help to test it]
              • Do we have a list of platform APIs ? refer PMON APIs
              • How to earn OCP credits for companies - Checkout the OCP website for how to get credits to such as software contributions etc.
              • Is sub-port feature is same as sub-interface ? yes 
              • What kind of features run on sub-port? No HLD yet, Jipan will come back with HLD on this
              • Can we have small description on sub-port ? Xin will work with Alibaba
              • When is the SAI proposal on sFlow? Dell working on the SAI proposal for sFlow and will send for design review.
              • What does SONiC side use for slow ? HSflowD, its a opensource package and need to check the licensing [Need to explore the licensing part, work with Xin]
              • Build improvements - experimental BRCM ? design review needed on the changes. Ben will provide a design review
              • What is Mgmt framework - Goal is to easily manage the sonic switch? [models, serialization, unified cli, gnmi]
              • What is the BFD for FRR used for - for BGP failures
              • Does BFD-FRR required SAI support ? No, for the current work, not using any SAI BFD APIs, will be using on next iteration.
              • Does SONiC official release support on ONL ? No, SONiC has tight roadmap next 8 months.

              Announcements 
              • OCP events - www.opencompute.org/events/upcoming events - road show  Taiwan, Beijing, India
              • SONiC next meeting 05/21/2019 
              • SONiC team will use Workgroup meetings other alternative Tuesday [Test workgroups & MLAG/L2 workgroups etc. ]
              APR release 
              • Redis performance - out of the apr release
              • CLI improvement - moved to next release
              • Any ETA for APR release stabilizations - need to estimate 

               

              MoM of Today's OCP SONiC Call 08/20/2019

              Aviz Devteam <developers@...>
               

              • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  8/20/2019.

              Topics discussed
              • MC-LAG HLD - Nephos 
              Review (Q & A):
              • Can MC-LAG support on sub-port interfaces?
              • Update scope of L2/L3 MC-LAG in HLD. 
              • Can MCLAG supports multicast? 
              • Do you have scale numbers w.r.t FDB/ARP/Route sync between MC-LAG failures? 
              • How can we isolate the packet flooding between MCLAG vs NON-MCLAG in same broadcast domain? 
              • Update HLD with test cases for MC-LAG failover (link/node level) scenarios?

              Thanks,
              AvizNetworks


              MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  8/13/2019.

              Topics discussed
              • Sonic management framework - BRCM & DELL
              Review (Q & A)
              • Can the click cli co-exists with mgmt-framework ? Yes.
              • Does mgmt framework support existing click cli commands ? yes, click based cli commnads will be migrated to klish based cli.
              • Can the click based cli deprecated ? No
              • Can the mgmt-framework supports the external AAA servers for authentication? pl add details to the HLD.
              • Add AAA auth failure work flow the REST SET work flow?
              • Does the mgmt framework handles the end to end error handling or feedback loop ? No, out of the scope.
              • Why are pulling telemetry container into mgmt container? We don't run multiple gNMI servers in SONIC, and requesting community to rename the sonic-telemetry server and make part of mgmt-framework.
              • Does output of click based CLI will be changed? 
              • Does the mgmt-framework supports the notion of start up config ? 
              • Does the mgmt framework supports the CLI show to reflect the configDB?
              • Can the mgmt-framework supports show running config ?
              • Feature timelines - the scope is proposing the mgmt framework and there will be seperate feature HLDs coming. 


              MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  8/6/2019.

              Topics discussed
              • Sub port interface design - Winda
              Review (Q & A)
              • How sub-port interface different from vlan interface in sonic? Ans: Vlan interface is a bridge port in sonic.
              • Rename dot1Q table ? - Since there is vlan interface table, dot1Q interface table is little confusing, community suggested go with sub-port/interface table.
              • How about separate sub-interface/port manager for sub-port interfaces?
              • Does sub-port feature use sonic-cli/direct native calls ? It uses linux iproute2 calls 
              • Do you expect iproute2 upgrades to support sub-port feature? No 
              • What is the use case of mtu with sub interface? 
              • Can sub-port interface support on port-breakout interfaces? 
              • Do you see any issues with naming convention w.r.t port breakouts & sub-ports?
              • Is there any limit on sub port interfaces? yes, refer scalability section [750 per switch]
              • Few question on sub-port functionality? If the packet entered untagged how does it route to sub-port interface?
              • what is the miss-policy support with sub-port interfaces ? could be dropped - debatable 
              • define behavior untagged and miss policy arrived to physical port? How Sonic process these packets?
              • Can physical & sub port interfaces shared same neighbor table or different ? 
              • Add section to the HLD for cross functional / port properties when port is layer 3/ layer 2 port? 


              Announcements:
              • 201908 release - will be delayed 10/2019
              • please send out PR's to sonic mailing lists 
              • OCP Amsterdam [Europe]- End of Sept.

              MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  07/23/2019.

              Topics discussed
              • Debug framework design spec - BRCM
              Review (Q & A)
              • What is the impact on current show tech dump ? 
              • Can the framework support get the tech dump specified time slice/range ? 
              • Does framework support any schema for debug event triggers ? 
              • Where does this framework run, can user turn off? 
              • Will the framework exports debug data in Json format? 

              MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  07/16/2019.

              Topics discussed
              • Egress Mirror support and ACL action capability check 
              Review (Q & A)
              • Does this feature backward compatible? Yes [sonic - to -sonic ]
              • Is there any requirement for egress mirroring to have all packet modifications done in the mirrored copy? No such support.
              • What is the behavior if max egress sessions programmed? - Not a requirement 
              • If both ingress/egress enabled on same packet, do we see two mirror copies? Yes, might need a fix around it.
              • Does SONiC has any limit on supporting egress mirror sessions? - depends on ASIC limit
              • Does this design supports truncate the mirrored copy ? Does it a SONiC/SAI spec? Need to check 

              • SONiC Image Build Time Improvements (MLNX)
              Review (Q & A)

              • Is the design use parallel builds? yes, make use of all the cpu threads (12) 
              • How much build time improvements we can see if we discount kernel? - ~1 h (we build linux built in separate thread)
              • How is different Docker build kit from docker natived?- DBK is completely written for docker images and supports isolated users instead multiple users.

                Announcements
                • 201908 release tracking
                • Repurposing the sub-group meetings to design meetings.

                MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  07/09/2019.

                Topics discussed

                • PDE (Platform Development Environment) /PDDF (Platform Driver Development Framework)- BRCM
                Review (Q&A)
                • Is PDE specific to BRCM chipset? Not necessarily, who ever supoport SAI can use it.
                • What are the interfaces PDE provides for ASIC and platform? PDDF data driven framework (JSON APIs)& existing driver API's
                • Can framework allow vendor extensions ? PDDF supports vendor extensions
                • How to package PDE ?  PDE can be built along with full sonic image & dockers or individual docker
                • Will custom plugins (ex:BMC) could integrate with PDE? yes
                • Can we load PDE into multiple targets? possible 

                Announcements
                • PR reviews ownership - checkout the 201908 release tracking page

                MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  06/25/2019.

                Topics discussed

                • VRF design discussion  - Nephos (Jeffrey) 
                Review (Q&A)
                • How does VRF configures in Linux kernel? As of now, though there is a CLI wrapper, SONiC ultimately uses the linux NetLink calls. [Community has some suggestions - Liat may help here with our examples]
                • Questions on config_db migration script on VRF config migration? offline discussions would continue/PR feedback.
                • Design decision behind creating an empty interface INTERFACE|Ethernet0:{} in config_db ? Multiple things, 1) SAI 2) Code complexity behind the resource migration. etc. There is a section in the PR,  feedback can be provided.
                • There is a request on VRF ID adding besides interface name in the next hop? The decision seems we are going with minimal configuration to support the SONiC system design.
                • Can we safely assume VRF design supports later versions of Linux Kernel 4.9? Yes. 
                What next? 
                • PR discussion could be extended to next meeting based on the PR feedback. [Jeffery/Prince]

                MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  06/18/2019.

                Topics discussed

                • Error Handling  - BRCM (Santhosh)
                Review (Q&A)
                We had a great discussion, there are lot of inputs from community and here is some. Feel free to add missing comments here.
                • How does framework supports multiple CRUD failures?  
                [Ben]: See below 
                • Do you provide a knob to switch off Error handling feature? Is knob necessary? 
                [Ben]: No knob is necessary. The error handling proposal is a framework that is available for a) implementation of error reporting in SWSS on a feature-by-feature basis and b) application processing of such errors. Both a) and b) are implementation choices that can be made on an feature-by-feature basis. And if an application does not want to process a supported error, then it can just ignore it. 
                • Does the applications get out of order notifications from feedback loop? How to handle in the case of it? Ex: User does create/delete/create and do you expect the error feedback come in order? 
                [Ben]: The specific comment was that the key/values used to refer to APP_DB (or other) in an ERROR_DB report may not be specific enough to distinguish between different error events. The example given (by Nikos) was a route add-withdraw-add case - since the APP_DB table entry may be the same between the 2 adds, then, if there's an error report, how does the application (FRR in this case) know which of the adds failed? We will come back on this point. 
                • What is the design decision behind a new Error DB? Why can't we merge error attributes into APP DB? 
                [Ben]: We thought about both options, and decided that the ERROR_DB gave a bit more flexibility and avoided changing existing application tables. It was not a clear decision, but we see no reason to move away from it. 
                • What is the mechanism to synchronize route CRUD between APP DB vs new Error DB? 
                [Ben]: See above 
                • Is new Error DB is a mirror of APP DB? 
                [Ben]: Not really - but each error table entry points to a corresponding entry in another table (usually APP_DB) 
                • The current design mentioned an approach to stop propagate the failed/error routes to the neighbors? This may not right as per RFC, the routes should propagate though the it failed due to some policy. (Nikos)
                [Ben]: This topic went beyond scope of the framework (#1 above) and into the BGP doc (#2). We will setup a separate offline discussion for this.
                 
                Overall feedback - The feedback loop is necessary to address SAI fatal errors. However the community requested the design should dis associate/de couple the feedback loop  as much as possible so that applications have freedom to react/handle it own way.
                [Ben]: That's exactly how it's setup today. 
                one option suggested - Framework should more generic and should accommodate opaque error context for the applications. 
                [Ben]: This is a different topic - see above ("The specific comment was that the key/values ....")

                Xin will extend an offline discussion on this topic, stay tuned.


                Announcements 
                • SONiC Release 201908 tracking page - Xin can you post the link
                • Action Item for community - Signup for PR reviews

                MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  06/04/2019.

                Topics discussed
                • STP/PVST - Sandeep (BRCM)
                Q & A 
                • Can this STP feature compile time disabled? BRCM will explore this (compile time/run time options to disable/enable STP/PVST feature)
                • Warm reboot not supported for PVST? Community requested more details need to be added to design 
                • Multiple questions what is the design decision on why  STP states are not programming to Kernel?   Few questions: 1) With the current STP design - the STP states are not populating in kernel, ASIC and Kernel will be out of sync, what is the downside ?  2) Let's say Port/Vlan is not blocking in the kernel, but is blocked in ASIC, then what is the behavior with arp/ping/ospf in this scenarios ?  BRCM should document the scenarios.
                • Community requested to document the ASIC and Kernel out of sync scenarios - AI BRCM
                • There should be no drop if HW says forwarding? yes
                • Is there mechanism to program the states in to Kernel ? BRCM to explore on it
                • If the trap is configured on port which is blocked does the packet comes to CPU? yes, based on the trap configurations.
                • When port is blocked in HW, what are the packets should send? - HW shouldn't block L2 packets/LACP exchanges but drop L3 packets.
                • Can COPP program to trap to cpu ? Yes

                • HLD on NAT  - Kiran Kella (BRCM)

                Q & A 
                • Does it support payload/embedded headers (ALGs- application level gateways) support ? Not right now.
                • Continue discussion next sub group meeting. 
                Announcements 
                • Next sub group meetings HLD on NAT, SFLow 

                MoM of today's OCP SONiC SUB GROUP call  05/28/2019.

                Topics discussed:
                • Status on MLAG Design discussions - Nephos Team

                Q & A 
                • Does this solution addressed L3 MLAG alone? Both L3 and L2. It seems L2 MLAG HLD need some updates.
                • Does MCLAG supports MulitCast? Nephos team will update the HLD with all the use-cases and missing pieces.
                • When is the next meeting to discuss on MCLAG ? June 11th
                • Community requested Nephos team for Updated MCLAG HLD before Jun 11th. 

                Action Items/Announcements
                • Will it be possible to discuss other than MCLAG in SUB Group calls ? Yes. Xin we will work and adjust to the cadence
                • Community requested to include/Update User Scenarios in HLDs for review
                • Ben Gale (BRCM) will propose on MCLAG next few weeks. 
                • Request community to review below MCLAG PR before next sub group meeting (06/11/2019)
                • Here is the PR and design presentation
                  1.  MCLAG video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shFEKjBp66Q&feature=youtu.be
                  2.  MCLAG PR - https://github.com/Azure/SONiC/pull/325

                MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  05/21/2019.

                Topics discussed
                • L2 - FDB/MAC enhancements - Anil (Broadcom)

                Q & A 
                • FDB aging per device ? yes 
                • Does FDB aging support per sec ? yes 
                • Can MAC aging support per port and VLAN ? Anil will add support to the proposal 
                • Design on restrict the warning logs on VLAN range feature support? Broadcom will consider this in the proposal [Aggregated log etc.]
                • Does this feature need  SAI support from vendors ? (no new SAI attributes), Broadcom will list SAI APIs using it currently for this feature.
                • How does Vlan range updates implemented? vlan range being consolidated at config_db and apply down to the hardware in single shot, no deletes and adds.
                • Do we have FDB type in the fdb entry ? yes [static vs dynamic] and will be displayed in show commands
                • How does FDB optimizations on topo/STP event flush ? out side of ASIC, in the case of broadcom flushes are quick.  
                • How does system wide fdb flush ? It should handled by SAI, by go over all the ports and Vlans, vendor specific. 
                • Community ask on MAC aging & MAC move scale numbers? Broadcom will add into the proposal 

                • BFD - Sumit Agarwal (Broadcom)
                Q & A 

                • Discussed on BFD implementations phase 1  & Phase 2. 
                • In BFD Phase-1 : BFD is part of BGP docker
                • In BFD Phase 2 : BFD will implement in Hardware. 
                • Can SONiC Users turn off if they don't want? yes through compile time, but community suggested don't run default, provide CLI to enable it.
                • How BFD works with warm reboots ? 1) planned warm reboot, users can update the BFD timers upfront 2) unplanned warm reboot BFD session will timeout before BGP timeouts. 
                • Can configure/control BFD timeouts on remote Bgp peers? Question from Nikos. Need discussion more.
                Announcements 

                • More design reviews lineup for Aug 2019.
                • Provide feedbacks on PRs 
                • Watch out for bi weekly meeting on design proposals and reviews.
                MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  05/07/2019.

                Topics discussed
                • SONiC 201908 release Planning - 05/07/2019

                Q & A 
                • Need code review support for multi-db performance improvements - MSFT & AVIZ Networks
                • What is the scope of Error handling mechanism work by BRCM  - It covers SAI error surfacing and handling
                • What is the scope of Configuration validations - Open for design, current scope is use syslog mechanism to propagate the config errors.
                • What is the VRF feature planned in SONiC? it is VRF lite support not the MPLS. 
                • Do we have plan for multi-tenancy VPN with VRF feature? No, that would be handles separately.
                • When is the VRF lite design review - Expected 5/21
                • What is the ETA for dynamic breakout - Xin will work with LNKD
                • For dynamic breakout, is it possible to get ASIC vendor ETA ? Xin will talk to ASIC vendors [an ETA early July would help to test it]
                • Do we have a list of platform APIs ? refer PMON APIs
                • How to earn OCP credits for companies - Checkout the OCP website for how to get credits to such as software contributions etc.
                • Is sub-port feature is same as sub-interface ? yes 
                • What kind of features run on sub-port? No HLD yet, Jipan will come back with HLD on this
                • Can we have small description on sub-port ? Xin will work with Alibaba
                • When is the SAI proposal on sFlow? Dell working on the SAI proposal for sFlow and will send for design review.
                • What does SONiC side use for slow ? HSflowD, its a opensource package and need to check the licensing [Need to explore the licensing part, work with Xin]
                • Build improvements - experimental BRCM ? design review needed on the changes. Ben will provide a design review
                • What is Mgmt framework - Goal is to easily manage the sonic switch? [models, serialization, unified cli, gnmi]
                • What is the BFD for FRR used for - for BGP failures
                • Does BFD-FRR required SAI support ? No, for the current work, not using any SAI BFD APIs, will be using on next iteration.
                • Does SONiC official release support on ONL ? No, SONiC has tight roadmap next 8 months.

                Announcements 
                • OCP events - www.opencompute.org/events/upcoming events - road show  Taiwan, Beijing, India
                • SONiC next meeting 05/21/2019 
                • SONiC team will use Workgroup meetings other alternative Tuesday [Test workgroups & MLAG/L2 workgroups etc. ]
                APR release 
                • Redis performance - out of the apr release
                • CLI improvement - moved to next release
                • Any ETA for APR release stabilizations - need to estimate 

                 

                Re: [SONiC] Re: SONiC community meeting agenda - 8/20/2019

                eantck rara <eantck888@...>
                 

                Could someone please share the bridge details for the weekly meeting ?


                On Aug 20, 2019, at 6:57 AM, Marian Pritsak <marianp@...> wrote:

                Hi Xin,

                The link doesn't work for me.
                Is this one the same?

                Marian

                From: 'Xin Liu (CLOUD)' via sonicproject <sonicproject@...>
                Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 1:29 AM
                To: 'sonicproject@...' <sonicproject@...>; OCP-Networking@OCP-All.groups.io <OCP-Networking@OCP-All.groups.io>
                Cc: Michael Schill <michael@...>; Jeffrey Zeng <Jeffrey.Zeng@...>; Shine Chen (陈翔) <Shine.Chen@...>; Ben Gale <ben.gale@...>; Rita Hui <Rita.Hui@...>; Jianjun Dong (董建军) <Jianjun.Dong@...>
                Subject: [SONiC] SONiC community meeting agenda - 8/20/2019
                 

                Folks:

                In tomorrow’s SONiC community meeting, we will discuss updated MLAG design doc

                - https://github.com/shine4chen/SONiC/blob/mclag/doc/Sonic-mclag-hld-v0.6.md

                 

                Meeting invitation attached.

                 

                Thanks

                Xin

                 

                --
                You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sonicproject" group.
                To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sonicproject+unsubscribe@....
                To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sonicproject/VI1PR0501MB222300E8FA2203BE2C93F080CDAB0%40VI1PR0501MB2223.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.

                Re: SONiC community meeting agenda - 8/20/2019

                Marian Pritsak <marianp@...>
                 

                Hi Xin,

                The link doesn't work for me.
                Is this one the same?

                Marian


                From: 'Xin Liu (CLOUD)' via sonicproject <sonicproject@...>
                Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 1:29 AM
                To: 'sonicproject@...' <sonicproject@...>; OCP-Networking@OCP-All.groups.io <OCP-Networking@OCP-All.groups.io>
                Cc: Michael Schill <michael@...>; Jeffrey Zeng <Jeffrey.Zeng@...>; Shine Chen (陈翔) <Shine.Chen@...>; Ben Gale <ben.gale@...>; Rita Hui <Rita.Hui@...>; Jianjun Dong (董建军) <Jianjun.Dong@...>
                Subject: [SONiC] SONiC community meeting agenda - 8/20/2019
                 

                Folks:

                In tomorrow’s SONiC community meeting, we will discuss updated MLAG design doc

                - https://github.com/shine4chen/SONiC/blob/mclag/doc/Sonic-mclag-hld-v0.6.md

                 

                Meeting invitation attached.

                 

                Thanks

                Xin

                 

                Re: 答复: SONiC community meeting agenda - 8/20/2019

                Jianjun Dong (董建军) <Jianjun.Dong@...>
                 

                Hi, all:

                The newest link of MLAG design doc is

                https://github.com/shine4chen/SONiC/blob/mclag/doc/Sonic-mclag-hld.md



                发件人: Xin Liu (CLOUD) <xinxliu@...>
                发送时间: 2019年8月20日 6:29
                收件人: 'sonicproject@...'; OCP-Networking@OCP-All.groups.io
                抄送: Michael Schill; Jeffrey Zeng; Shine Chen (陈翔); Ben Gale; Rita Hui; Jianjun Dong (董建军)
                主题: SONiC community meeting agenda - 8/20/2019
                 

                Folks:

                In tomorrow’s SONiC community meeting, we will discuss updated MLAG design doc

                - https://github.com/shine4chen/SONiC/blob/mclag/doc/Sonic-mclag-hld-v0.6.md

                 

                Meeting invitation attached.

                 

                Thanks

                Xin

                 

                SONiC community meeting agenda - 8/20/2019

                Xin Liu (CLOUD)
                 

                Folks:

                In tomorrow’s SONiC community meeting, we will discuss updated MLAG design doc

                - https://github.com/shine4chen/SONiC/blob/mclag/doc/Sonic-mclag-hld-v0.6.md

                 

                Meeting invitation attached.

                 

                Thanks

                Xin

                 

                SONiC community meeting agenda 8/13/2019

                Xin Liu (CLOUD)
                 

                Folks:

                In tomorrow’s SONiC community meeting, we will discuss Mgmt Framework

                - https://github.com/Azure/SONiC/pull/436

                 

                The tentative agenda for the coming weeks is below:

                - 8/20: MLAG (Nephos/BRCM)

                - 8/27: Dynamic Port breakout (Linkedin)

                - 9/3: Error Handling (re-visit) (BRCM)

                - 9/10: Drop counter HLD (MSFT)

                Meeting invite is in the attachment.

                Thanks

                Xin