MoM of today's OCP SONiC call 05/12/2020

Skip to first unread message

MS Reddy

May 13, 2020, 12:39:36 PM5/13/20
to Ben Gale, zhenghui cai, sonicproject,, Michael Schill, Xin Liu (CLOUD)
MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  05/12/2020.

Topics discussed.
Config Replace feature HLD -   BRCM
  • SONiC configLet does similar job JSON Patch, can it be leverage code. Please refer 
  • Does the config replace uses SWSS SDK? yes
  • Feedback - this PR great,can be split into multiple PRs following reasons
    • Most sonic daemon are not designed to receive updates from config updates?
    • SYNC support at Table level vs Attribute level
    • It is good to have config replace contract [pre-replace-post] so that no feature will miss it?
    • Does the feature call out dependency graph on the config change events? 
  • How does sonic-mgmt-framework handles config replace feature today? 
  • How does the design validates JSON Patch? 
  • Does it support revert on config failures? 

On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:05 AM Ben Gale <> wrote:

As discussed on the call, the base 4K VLAN scaling changes were PR'd a year ago: -



On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 11:57 AM MS Reddy <> wrote:
  • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  05/05/2020.

Topics discussed.

MC-LAG Enhancements -   BRCM

  • Do we have yang model for this feature? 
  • Can you upstream 4k vlan bug fixes done to sonic? 
  • How does isolation group works? do we add all mclag ports into group
  • What if platforms doesn't support isolation groups? what is the fallback mechanism? 
  •   How does SONiC know about platform capabilities w.r.t to isolation groups vs ACL ?   
  • Why do need new app tables fro MC-LAG? 
  • Update design section with platform capability check w.r.t ACL/isolation groups? 
Firmware Utils - MLNX 
Virtual Summit 
  • May 12th
  • 10:51 Dave Maltz Key Note 
  • 11:20-12 PM live session networking 
  • May 13th - Hardware presentations
  • May 14th - Software presentations
  • Pre-recorded sessions 
  • Symposium 

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 6:44 AM zhenghui cai <> wrote:
An even more serious question we need to answer for this FGNHG is that do we have the enforcement that kernel routing table would be consistent with FIB programming on ASICs. 
If this implementation is changing FIB but not reflecting back to kernel (i.e. routing stack), this will be the first case that violating the current model.

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 11:21 PM MS Reddy <> wrote:
  • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  04/28/2020.

Topics discussed.

Fine grained ECMP hashing -   Anish
  • Can this design supports use case like wildcard/catch all ecmp entry? 
  • Is it possible to integrate with ECMP capabilities of the ASIC in terms of bucket size and number of groups? 
  • Can CRM module integrate with finegrained ECMP ? Ans: check SAI support for CRM
  • Can this design support use case like ordered/unordered/finegrained sets of ECMP groups? Ans: should bring up in SAI discussions
  • More discussions will be continued..
Kernel programming improvements - NetLink API - [Naveen - BRCM]
  • What is motivation behind the NetLinkAPI? Don't existing LibNl support achieve this?
  • Why NetLink API over LibNL ? Design should be added with few justification
  • List out the missing commands from LibNl? will LibNl patch should solve this problem?
  • More discussions will be continued..

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 12:58 AM MS Reddy <> wrote:
  • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  04/21/2020.

Topics discussed.
Management Framework -2 - Anand/Partha/Sachin  [BRCM]
  • Does this design covers authentication workflows?  - It will be cover under RBAC design PR
  • How does it integrate with HamD & tacacs/radius - Lookout for RBAC PR
  • Provide some example how to use CVL for custom validations? 
  • Do you have REST performance numbers to share to community? 
  • Will the design provide what improvements done w.r.t rest validations & performance? 
  • Will the rest server supports pagination? 
  • Does management framework allows sonic cli & ISCLI intertwined? -config made through sonic cli shows up in ISCLI viceversa?
  • What are the major changes with framework 2 
    • Multi DB changes 
    • decouple telemetry 
    • upgrade openAPI spec 3.0 to support yang stmt, union, yang constriants etc.
    • klish -> moved away from client / generic client libCurl 
    • Telemetry - goModule support 
    • notification and version support
Discussion will be continued next week too. The PR is out for feedback -

Virtual Summit
  • OCP virtual summit Registration remainder + high level schedule
  • May 12 - Live panel + sonic talks (10- 11:30)
  • May 13 - Hardware related
  • May 14 - sonic software 
  • May 15 - Symposium
More details checkout the schedule


On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 9:44 AM MS Reddy <> wrote:
  • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  04/14/2020.

Topics discussed.
D-BUS - Mike[DELL]
  • Why Dbus used for ztp and why not control panel aclD? 
  • How to secure the users shouldn't mis use the critical host access to commands like reboot? Can you provide some guidelines around it? 
  • How does host communicate to ex: reboot/warm reboot execution status to clients (containers issued commands to host)? How does D-Bus helps here?   
  • Will the design provide some infrastructure level audit mechanism who does what w.r.t host commands like reboot/warm reboot etc.
  • Why D-Bus used specific listed services/activities alone, why can't it use for all the services? Can you add some guidelines to the document?  
Virtual Summit 

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 9:27 AM MS Reddy <> wrote:
  • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  04/06/2020.

Topics discussed.
AAA Enhancements - Martin [DELL]
  • How to deal with Redis failures w.r.t account management? 
  • What is the target sonic customer deployments trying to address here? 
  • How do we protect the account creations from docker/applications like sonic-mgmt-framework or any other applications? Do you have any suggestions?
  • Can this design support Radius based account management? Ans: It seems there is a PR from BRCM
  • Today SONiC has Tacacs, what are the improvements expect from this HLD? 
  • How does the design handles multiple component failures? Ex: HAMD, REDIS, TACACS etc
  • Can hamD decoupled from sonic-mgmt-framework? 
202006 Roadmap 

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 9:07 AM MS Reddy <> wrote:
  • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  03/31/2020.

Topics discussed.
Proposal for System Health for LED settings - Liat (MLNX)

  • Can this design consider multiple system LED's? AI Liat
  • How do you test and quality LED management? Ans: Unit testing 
  • Is it possible to integrate with Monit for docker/process critical monitoring? Ans : Yes
  • What is the suggestions for BMC systems ? Ans: this design is not for BMS based systems
  • Can this alert/syslog messages duplicate to SNMP traps? Ans: It seems SONiC don't have traps today
  • Can this design support system ready status? AI Liat (ASIC/vendor specific APIs)
  • Is this design provide any port level LED blink functionality? AI Liat (ASIC/Vendor specific)
  • This design should take care the fact that syslog format shouldn't be break BMC messaging/ extra work for BMC based systems  ? 
Non Technical
  • OCP virtual summit - May
  • Pre-recorded talk  - deadline by this friday.
  • Virtual booths - video recording of Demo [OCP will play demos several multiple months.

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 9:26 AM MS Reddy <> wrote:
  • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  03/24/2020.

Topics discussed.
Port Mirroring Rupesh Kumar  (BRCM)

1. Do you have a data model to support this feature? Please list out in HLD AI Rupesh
2. Can this feature support OpenConfig data model? No
3. How does the design handles both ACL & port based mirror enabled? Can we expect two copies ? AI Rupesh
4. Can this design support config validations? AI Rupesh
5. How does the design handles link events w.r.t to activate inactivate sessions? 
6. If platform doesn't support SPAN/ERSPAN features what is the behavior? Does this design consider SAI capability check? AI Rupesh/BRCM
7. What are the tests written and How are these test cases organised / which repos will be used? AI - Rupesh
8. What are the SAI attributes used in the feature.
9. Can we police SPAN/ERSPAN sessions? AI Rupesh


On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 9:14 AM MS Reddy <> wrote:
  • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  03/17/2020.

Topics discussed.
Sonic Qos Schedular & Shaping - Michael (BRCM)
  • Can shaping config support on sub interfaces/ port channels ? No 
  • Do we have a plan to support vlan/port channel as many DC supports this use case? 
  • Why do need SAI_SCHEDULER_GROUP_ATTR_SCHEDULAR_PROFILE_ID when SAI_QUEUE_SCHEDULAR_PROFILE_ID available ? Ans: schedular_group will help for finer granularity. 
  • Do you have plan to publish spytest cases with feature? yes
  • How to configure these new shaping configuration? is this coexists with config_db? Ans : new shaping attributes supported through sonic-mgmt-framework open-config model 
  • What are the shaping constraints w.r.t DPB (dynamic port breakout) ? 
  • Can shaping applied to CPU queues? suggestion - CoPP is the right place to configure the CPU queues? 
  • Can it be possible to configure shaping in percentage so that DPB can dynamically change the shaping per port? 
  • Can this shaping applied on operation port (profile applied and under traffic) ? No CLI to configure that today

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 9:22 AM MS Reddy <> wrote:

  • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  03/10/2020.

Topics discussed.
Monitoring and auto-Mitigating unhealthy containers n SONiC - Joe
  • How Monit service is different from Supervisord? Monit does track and alert every 5 min, so user will not miss any, where as supervisord alerts only once. 
  • Can Monit service monitor resource usage? >> possible
  • How does Monit service detects dockers come online dynamically? >> right now it's driven by confiig file
  • Can we make Thresholds human readable? Can it be possible to calculate threshold in % values ? >> Joe will look into itt
  • How can we determine these throsholds ? ex: How much threshold shall we fix for a BGP container? >> Joe will look into it
  • Can Monit service help user specify docker system quotas? >> no
  • Can database is consistent after auto restart ? >> Not right now. Monit service provide provision to disable features from auto-restart ex: database 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:09 PM MS Reddy <> wrote:
  • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  02/25/2020.

Topics discussed.
Gear Box Design - BRCM 

  • How does this design support for dynamic loading/discovering of external phy 
  • Why do pick multiple versions of phy-syncd? why can't glorify the existing syncd? 
  • Can vendors cherry-pick one synd instance out of all the instances/ is this possible switch off other syncd instances ? 
  • It is advised GearBox design should discuss with breakout/sub port work groups?
  • Can this design supports dynamically updating eeprom / firmware ? 
  • How does this design treats system side vs line card link events ?

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 9:27 AM MS Reddy <> wrote:
  • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  02/11/2020.

Topics discussed.
SONiC Line card Hot Swap - Inspur
  • How does it detect line card is broken ? Line card status must have [present/not present/ abnormal]
  • How does this line card event detected by sonic ? is it event or poll based? 
  • I/O module / Linecard type detection is HW based detection 
  • List out the I/O or line cards supported in the design? 
  • How do you initilize the ASIC to line card type 
  • It should be discussed w.r.t sku/ dynamic breakout and gear box features.
Inspur team work with Xin to have sub group meeting to discuss more on the interested parties. 

Pre-OCP registration remainder


On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 9:09 AM  <> wrote:
MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  02/04/2020.

Topics discussed.
Debian 10 buster kernel upgrade 202006 release
  • 201911 release bugs triage - watch out for bug comments and provide your update.
  • OCP pre-summit workshop 

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 8:43 AM MSREDDY P <> wrote:
MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  01/14/2020.

Topics discussed.
  • OCP pre-summit workshop - watch out for invitation from EventBrite
  • Hackathon - watch out for invitation 
  • New workgroups - watch out for workgroup page
  • Round table for workgroup meetups
  • Next release - 202006

On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 8:57 AM MSREDDY P <> wrote:
MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  12/17/2019.

Topics discussed:

              PCI_E Diagnostics:

  • How does it help? the feature captures all the pci_e components in pcie.yaml config file and verify the components on demand.
  • How is different from lspci? the feature aggregates the lspci command info and capture components list in pcie.yaml file for component check 
  • When does the pcie.yaml generated? Platform shall generate the file when there is any change.
  • Is the feature generic for all the platforms ? yes, there is specific file for each platform and the platform owners should update it.
  • Can the feature distinguish critical/non critical PCI_e components? can this be included in the design ?

  • Next meeting - Jan 7th.


On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 9:18 AM MSREDDY P <> wrote:
MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  12/10/2019.

Topics discussed:
Release 201910 tracking status:
  • ZTP  -  Ready to merge  #599 is failed to pass tests. (failed tests are vs related.) 
  • MGMT Framework -  Should support mgmt docker can be turned off / not build at all. Ready to merge.
  • PDDF - on review pending 
  • STP/PVSP - Pending on Jenkins jobs.
  • L3 performance - Merged
  • L2 performance - ready to merge 
  • BFD - one more review needed and sync up with FRR upstream / feature on or off capabilities(next releases) - BRCM will share test results for review
  • NAT - SAI dependency, BRCM will work with SAI community to close on this next few months (next release) - BRCM will share test results for review (No automation tests)
- OCP planning
To be focussed Topics - Community should focus on topics such as test improvements 
Venue - LNKD

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 9:11 AM MSREDDY P <> wrote:
MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  12/03/2019.

Topics discussed:
Release 201910 tracking status:
  • ZTP  -  [Approvals Pending] - Guohan approved it
  • BFD - one more review needed and sync up with FRR upstream / feature on or off capabilities(next releases) - BRCM will share test results for review
  • NAT - SAI dependency, BRCM will work with SAI community to close on this next few months (next release)
  • STP/PVST - Build Job in Zenkins should be included 
  • MGMT Framework - Short group to review the changes / Alibaba provided comments on gNMI bring together with mgmt container.
Discussions will be continued next week.


On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 9:11 AM MSREDDY P <> wrote:
MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  11/26/2019.

Topics discussed:

Release 201910 tracking status:
  • ZTP  - Mostly ready BRCM & Dell will take a look PR and close it 
  • BFD - one more review needed and sync up with FRR upstream / feature on or off capabilities(next releases)
  • NAT - SAI dependency, BRCM will work with SAI community to close on this next few months
  • L2 enhancements - extra file should be removed from SAI REDIS PR.
  • MultiDB - Need to raise PR with all new changes 
  • MGMT Framework - Short group to review the changes  
  • Deadline for OCP participation extended- Dec 5th.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 9:15 AM MSREDDY P <> wrote:
  • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  11/19/2019.

Topics discussed

Thermal Control Design - MLNX

             Review (Q & A):
  • Can the design support to integrate with thirdparty ? ex: BCM enabled CPU /thermal controls? yes
  • Can this new daemon enabled/disabled? yes
  • Is it possible to select few objects (fan/cpu/thermal) ? yes (all/none) 
  • How about supporting ASIC Internal Sensors - Dell will raise a PR on it
  • Can this design supports to have flexibility use their own thermal/fan algorithm? yes 
  • A single daemon handles all the change events (fan/cpu/thermal)? there us high chance that some events should wait in the loop with the current design? Why can't we propose different change events for different cpu/fan/optics? 
  • Will the design supports more policies? yes
  • Verbose on API definition on threshold levels about Average/Max/ Snapshot 
  • The current design discussed about 60 sec polling interval ? Is there a way to include timestamp in polling mechanism? 
  • Is there any API exposed for fanTray contain more than one fan? 
OCP deadline - Nov 29th 


On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 6:23 PM MSREDDY P <> wrote:
  • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  11/12/2019.

Topics discussed

DPKG Caching Framework - BRCM

             Review (Q & A):
  • How does the framework track/calculate the GIT hash for new files and dependencies pulling from the Internet?
  • Where does the debug cache stored? 
  • Can this framework increase build time (first time, how much does it take to populate the cache)? 
  • How much memory the debug cache takes ? ~600MB
  • The framework discussed about two SHA hases? Does it have any significance? can this solved using single hash? 
  • How does the framework capture the file modified or not ? 
  • How does the framework deals with sonic patch files get applied to dpkg cache framework?
  • Does the sha calculated for the depends files or depend files content ?
  • How does commit and content SHA utilized in the framework? Why can't content-sha alone should solve the local modified files ? 
  • Do need to reevaluate/ recommend memory requirements with the DPKG feature?

        On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 9:53 AM MSREDDY P <> wrote:
        MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  11/05/2019.

        Topics discussed

        • DPKG Caching Framework - BRCM 
        • Review (Q & A):
          • How do track/calculate the GIT hash for new files and dependencies from the internet?
          • Where does the deebug cache stored? 
          • Can this framework takes more time?  
          • How much memory the debug cache takes ? ~600MB

        On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 9:39 AM MSREDDY P <> wrote:
        • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  10/29/2019.

        Topics discussed
        • RADIUS - BRCM
        Review (Q & A):
        • Where does the Cached MPL (management-privilege-level)stored ?  It stored at protected file /var/run/radius
        • Can the framework support user change from tacacs+ to radius? 
        • What is the radius agent planning to use ? pam-radius 
        • How about user login's on device reboots? does it expect login failed/success? No, as soon as MPL cache preserved, users can logged in.
        • Can the MPL cache associate with TTL? No, right now we refresh the session on every user logging in.
        • There are 3 radius options [many-to-one = Y/N/A] discussed, what is appropriate for SONiC usage?  

        DPKG Caching Framework - BRCM
        • How do track/calculate the GIT hash for new files and dependencies from the internet?
        • Where does the deebug cache stored? 
        • Can this framework takes more time?  
        • How much memory the debug cache takes ? ~600MB
        PR is available, discussion will continue next week.


        On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 10:00 AM MSREDDY P <> wrote:
        • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  10/22/2019.

        Topics discussed
        • VRRP (Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol)- BRCM
        Review (Q & A):
        • What is preventing not to support vrrp3?
        • How is it different from FRR VRRP support? do you get a chance to evaluate FRR VRRP stack? 
        • It would be good to list the out the possible use cases/deployments for the sonic user to enable to this feature? Can this feature work with data center MLAG kind of deployments ?
        • How does the uplink tracking works? for instance let's say there are more than 8 uplink interfaces how do we does it effects on mastership?
        • How to handle split-brain scenarios? 
        • What are the supported VRID ranges ? 
        Sub group on test framework proposal - starting tomorrow 8-9 AM PST 

        On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 6:50 PM MSREDDY P <> wrote:
        • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  10/15/2019.

        Topics discussed
        • Tech Support export Service 
        Review (Q & A):
        • Can custom scripts will be added to tech support service ? This is minimal service, can be added. 
        • Can the Journal data should be part of tech support ? will be included
        • What kind of granular level support provided by tech support service? Minimal service for now, can be added filters, custom plugins to ex: to export to cloud etc. 
        • It seems tech support keep adding repeated data? How to avoid this storage back pressure on remote server? will look it
        • do you have per process core support ? Can the user cherry pick on few process instead all ? With current schema of things with containers seems not possible right now. BRCM will look into it.
        •   Core File Manager 
        Review (Q & A):
        • Can File Manager do automatic analysis on core dumps ? yes 
        • Will it be possible to export only analysis reports to tech support ? yes 
        • Is the Core file uploaded with back traces ? yes
        • Does the systemD increase footprint - little bit 

        On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:27 AM MSREDDY P <> wrote:
        • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  10/08/2019.

        Topics discussed
        • Checkout for OCP summit
        • Test sub group will be back next week [mid of OCT]
        • SONiC Document work group - news-letter bi-weekly [end of October]
        • 201908 Code PR reviews - target next 2 weeks.
        • 201908 Code complete - by Oct 31st
        • 201908 QA start - Nov 1st 

        • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  9/24/2019.

        Topics discussed
        • MGMT Framework - BRCM & DELL

        Review (Q & A):
        • List out examples where does the developers/users need transLib hints?
        • W.r.t CVL library, do you have any performance numbers ex: add-del-add config objects work flow ex: vlan ? Do you see any performance hit? what are the improveements?

        On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 9:22 AM MSREDDY P <> wrote:
        • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  9/24/2019.

        Topics discussed
        • Dynamic Port BreakOut  - LKND 
        • This talk is extension of previous discussion.
        Review (Q & A):
        • Can the design incorporate port groups ? offline discussion with Dell, LKND.
        • Can the design support to add port persona ex: FC/FCoE or Ethernet? 
        • What is the default admin status of fanned out ports ? admin staus is DOWN by default.
        • How does the design guarantee the sequencing of delete/add configurations? 


        On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 9:49 AM MSREDDY P <> wrote:
        • MoM of today's OCP SONiC call  9/17/2019.

        Topics discussed
        • Firmware Utils  - MLNX
        Review (Q & A):
        • Why don't leverage ONIE updater, what is the design rational behind the fwUtils? 
        • What is the significance of chassis? Does Sonic supports multiple chassis?
        • Can the design supports module level installations? 
        • Is the design support remote image path? yes
        • What are the supported methods to download images? remote url http/https
        • What about the image validations ? ex: compatibility between CPLD/BIOS etc..
        • Can user skip/install specific image version using the fwUtils? - you should use it manually [skip the fwUpgrade]
        • Can fwUtils supports scheduling of reloads after component updates? 

        2019 Oct Release 
        Checkout below for release tracking 


        On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 9:10 AM MSREDDY P <> wrote:
        • 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?


        On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 9:22 AM MSREDDY P <> 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 -

        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.


          On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 7:19 AM MSREDDY P <> 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.


          • 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?


          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? 

          • 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.

            • 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 

            • 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.

            • 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. 
            • 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 -
              2.  MCLAG PR -

            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.

            • 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.

            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
            To view this discussion on the web visit

            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
            To view this discussion on the web visit
            Reply all
            Reply to author
            0 new messages