SONiC community meeting agenda - 5/7/2019

[Xin Liu (CLOUD)]

Folks:
We will discuss SONiC 201908 release plan.
We built a tentative list of items to work on. Will discuss with the community tomorrow.
Meeting invite in the attachment.

Thanks
Xin

[Madhu Pal]

Hi Team, 

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 
  

Best Regards,

-Madhu

Aviz Networks

--
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...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sonicp...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sonicproject/SN6PR2101MB1056AB1C08434AFE42C234C7B6310%40SN6PR2101MB1056.namprd21.prod.outlook.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Xin Liu (CLOUD)]

Thanks, Madhu!

Adding the notes. It will be updated on https://github.com/Azure/SONiC/wiki/Sonic-Roadmap-Planning very soon.

 

Tentative plan  for 201908	Notes
Mgmt VRF (moved from 201904 to 201908)	In code review stage,  call for code review Apstra, BRCM
Multi-DB optimization   (Alibaba)	In code review stage,  Open for call for MSFT, Madhu/Aviz
Configuration validation	Open on design
VRF(Nephos and BRCM)	VRF LITE,  Design review 5/21/2019
Dynamic break out (LNKD)	Ask: ASIC vendor ETA to support that, will come back. Have platform work to do.
Platform API cut over to the new ones	P0: APIs in use to cut over to new APIs in 201908. P1: addition APIs , is it feasible for HW platform vendors to implement
Platform test/SSD diagnostic tolling  (MLNX)	Design review has done
Ansible playbook test switch to Py Test	In SONiC test workgroup
NAT	In SAI community NAT proposal review, 5/9, SONiC work on BRCM
Sub-port support	SAI support first, SONiC part will come, need HLD on this, particular on the scope, which feature will work on sub-port
sFlow – defining SAI related API now, install the HSFlowD (DELL)	SAI proposal going on, expect one more review, SONiC will use open source package, need to research on the licensing
ZTP (BRCM)	Design review done, will close feedback input this week
Build Improvements	BRCM will come back on the details
Management Framework (need to scope)
Error handling enhancements	BRCM is working on SAI error surfacing,
BFD (SW - 100ms interval from FRR)	Enable BFD to be tested with FRR, for BGP failures, no additional SAI support needed,
MAC table management	BRCM will come with HLD
STP/PVST	BRCM will come with HLD
L2 functional and performance enhancements	BRCM will come with HLD
L3 perf enhancement	BRCM will come with HLD
Test coverage improvement (performance, scale, dynamic break out, FRR, )	SONiC test workgroup
Platform Driver Development Framework	To help new platform bring up

 

Thanks

Xin

[Madhu Pal]

Hi Team, 

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.
  

Best Regards,

-Madhu

Aviz Networks

[Anil Pandey]

Minor correction:

• Can FDB clear support per port and VLAN ? Anil will add support to the proposal

Thanks,

Anil

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sonicproject/CADavDeaRoh2ApMWWpnOXRK0qxRUfGd_ioAk%2Bdpv%3D5afhNEV--A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Madhu Pal]

Hi Anil,

Thanks for the correction.

Regards,

Madhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sonicproject/CA%2BCxG%3D9_SB3QvemQyizHMbZWQSUa-EOLog_wqLucYY2SVug86w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Madhu Pal]

Hi Team, 

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

Thanks,

-Madhu

AvizNetworks

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sonicproject/CA%2BCxG%3D9_SB3QvemQyizHMbZWQSUa-EOLog_wqLucYY2SVug86w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Madhu Pal]

Hi Team, 

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 

Thanks,

Madhu

AvizNetworks

[Madhu Pal]

Corrected subject line with correct date.

[Madhu Pal]

Hi Team, 

MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  06/11/2019.

Topics discussed

• sFLOW - Padma Narayana (Dell)

Review (Q&A)

• How to support sFlow ratelimit? One option via CoPP
• is there any hsflowd/InMon license implications? Padmanabhan follow up
• Do we maintain separate repos for sFlow custom configurations? maintain SONiC Repo
• What is the configurations need to expose hsflowd/InMon ? sampling rate, interfaces etc. Please add it into the HLD if not.
• Where do you use state db entries?AI Dell
• How to handle warm boot scenario ? please have a section in the HLD AI Padmanabhan
• Any recommendations on sFlow sampling performance? 

• HLD on NAT  - Kiran Kella (BRCM)

Review (Q&A)

• Is this design supports ALGs ?  Not supported
• How to support rate-limits? 
• How to handle flow TableFull scenarios? 
• What is the design to make kernel vs ASIC conntrack NAT entries are in sync? 
• Do you have NAT scaling numbers? 
• BulkAPI/Flex counters support for NAT flows? Both ways can be supported

Announcements 

• Next PR discussion - Error handling BRCM
  

Thanks,

Madhu

AvizNetworks

[Ben Gale]

Some additions below .... thanks

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 1:14 PM Madhu Pal <mad...@aviznetworks.com> wrote:

Hi Team, 

MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  06/11/2019.

Topics discussed

• sFLOW - Padma Narayana (Dell)

Review (Q&A)

• How to support sFlow ratelimit? One option via CoPP
• is there any hsflowd/InMon license implications? Padmanabhan follow up

• Do we maintain separate repos for sFlow custom configurations? maintain SONiC Repo -  

• [Ben]: Not quite - the proposal from Padman was to pull the code in from the 3rd-party repo at build time - same way as teamd is handled today. The question was whether we should instead bring a fork into SONiC so we can more easily make local changes (similar to how FRR is handled today). Padman's view was that the level of changes likely required would not justify that - accepted. Note that we can always apply SONiC patches at build time (again, as per teamd) if we have trouble getting any fixes applied upstream.

• What is the configurations need to expose hsflowd/InMon ? sampling rate, interfaces etc. Please add it into the HLD if not.
• Where do you use state db entries?AI Dell
• How to handle warm boot scenario ? please have a section in the HLD AI Padmanabhan
• Any recommendations on sFlow sampling performance? 

[Ben]: sFlow Counter support is moving into Phase 1 (sFlow spec compliance issue)

[Ben]: Asked whether it was possible to change sFlow configuration without restarting hsflowd.

[Ben]: Agreed that per interface enable/disable is needed. However, per-interface sampling rate could come later

[Ben]: gennetlink details don't need to be configurable

[Ben]: sFlow will be a SONiC build option. However, the OrchAgent/syncd code will always be there

[Ben]: Discussion on whether SAI should use the generic psample driver (available in Debian 10) vs. using it's own netlink configuration. Padman said that this is a SAI decision. Cautioned that the generic psample driver may have a performance issue around non-zero copies.

[Ben]: All to focus on PR for further review  

•  

• HLD on NAT  - Kiran Kella (BRCM)

Review (Q&A)

• Is this design supports ALGs ?  Not supported

• How to support rate-limits? [Ben]: Answer was that NAT miss traffic to the CPU is rate limited using the existing CoPP feature. There will be no per-session "NAT hit" rate limit - not a requirement
• Requirement to gracefully handle flow TableFull scenarios

• What is the design to make kernel vs ASIC conntrack NAT entries are in sync? 

• Do you have NAT scaling numbers?  [Ben]: These are in the HLD (Broadcom HW). However the application is not limited. See also the Table full topic (and application awareness of scale) 
• BulkAPI/Flex counters support for NAT flows? Both ways can be supported  [Ben]: The concern was over the performance impact of maintaining potentially thousands of counters. Rejected the idea of making this configurable (i.e. define which sessions are counted), but analyze the options to ensure that system performance is not adversely affected.

[Ben]: Concern over only tracking 2-ways of the 3-way TCP handshake - Guohan to take this offline

[Ben]: All to focus on PR for further review  

Announcements 

• Next PR discussion - Error handling BRCM

[Ben]: Also 201908 feature status update

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sonicproject/CADavDebLwE8HAOuVEG4XVW_8%3D%2Bc%2B9oD-XexubN8eLwtrakXRgw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Madhu Pal]

Hi Team, 

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? 
  
• Do you provide a knob to switch off Error handling feature? Is knob necessary? 
• 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? 
• What is the design decision behind a new Error DB? Why can't we merge error attributes into APP DB? 
• What is the mechanism to synchronize route CRUD between APP DB vs new Error DB? 
• Is new Error DB is a mirror of 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)

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.

one option suggested - Framework should more generic and should accommodate opaque error context for the applications. 

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

Thanks & Regards,

-Madhu

Aviz Networks

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sonicproject/CANur7QTvXAjGnARUi2gF7tq3yPusD1%2B4ZqR0%2BPK1CDMFTc9FFA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ben Gale]

Thanks Madhu.

Comments in-line.

Bear in mind that there are 2 HLDs in play here - we only got to the first of these in the call

1) Error handling framework - https://github.com/Azure/SONiC/pull/391

2) BGP usage of this - https://github.com/Azure/SONiC/pull/404

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 12:58 AM Madhu Pal <mad...@aviznetworks.com> wrote:

Hi Team, 

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 ....")

[Madhu Pal]

Hi Team, 

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]

Thanks & Regards,

-Madhu

Aviz Networks

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sonicproject/CANur7QTQpoPUBfzYvjWTx4_wMZVeWC5%2B_BHre2qHLh3FwS8xeg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Madhu Pal]

Hi Team, 

MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  07/02/2019.

Topics discussed

• L3 Performance enhancements  -BRCM

Review (Q&A)

• About bulk timer? Few comments: 1) the idea is good, but it will introduce the delay for non bulk scenarios too. 2) multi redis is an option to look into 3) Can  Sonic live without these enhancements, list out the use-cases is must [offline discussions with MSFT team who originally requested this] - Anand, please post the outcome of offline discussions. 
• Is the programming time measured end to end? Yes
• Do you have breakdown of perf time on each layer? Anand will look into it
• do you consider multi redis proposal in L3 enhancements? No. It seems multi db is not yet merged to trunk.
• How much perf improvement expected ?Expected 30% [Code changes yet to be tested]
• Few suggestions on test cases - Tests should add BGP neighbors into the mix.

Thanks,

-Madhu

Aviz Networks

[Madhu Pal]

Hi Team, 

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

Thanks,

-Madhu

Aviz Networks

[Haile Weleslassie]

"How does VRF configure in Linux kernel? As of now, though there is a CLI wrapper, SONiC ultimately uses the linux NetLink calls. "

Yes I have seen, in the source code,SONiC uses the linux Netlink calls!

But I am not clear how the configuration is offloaded  to the ASIC.  

 HELP  PLEASE!!!

respectfully; 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sonicproject/CADavDeZgQs%3DtjmEoSsaYR-vYivUdminjYgjQLr7uLhJWaKqGfA%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Haile Weleslassie
 

[eantck rara]

Hello,

Where can get the SONIC community weekly meeting invite.

~Thank you ,

/Kat

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sonicproject/CADavDeZgQs%3DtjmEoSsaYR-vYivUdminjYgjQLr7uLhJWaKqGfA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Haile Weleslassie]

"As of now, though there is a CLI wrapper, SONiC ultimately uses the linux NetLink calls. "

Great!!!
But Can any body make me clear  how the configuration is offloaded  to the ASIC,please!!!!  

 

    with regards!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sonicproject/CADknkFHD6Fnpi5gEj4FzEAbtK%2B5xPRhyy2iFqSmd_hNcPr3now%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Haile Weleslassie
 

[Madhu Pal]

Hi Team, 

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.

Thanks,

-Madhu

Aviz Networks

[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.