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

Skip to first unread message


Aug 28, 2019, 10:19:16 AM8/28/19
to sonicproject,, Michael Schill, Xin Liu (CLOUD)
  • 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.
    • 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.

    • OCP events - 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 



    Sep 3, 2019, 12:22:39 PM9/3/19
    to sonicproject,, Michael Schill, Xin Liu (CLOUD)
    • 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.



      Sep 10, 2019, 12:11:06 PM9/10/19
      to sonicproject,, Michael Schill, Xin Liu (CLOUD)
      • 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?



      Sep 17, 2019, 12:49:30 PM9/17/19
      to sonicproject,, Michael Schill, Xin Liu (CLOUD)
      • 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 



      Sep 24, 2019, 12:23:08 PM9/24/19
      to sonicproject,, Michael Schill, Xin Liu (CLOUD)
      • 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? 



      Oct 8, 2019, 1:27:46 PM10/8/19
      to sonicproject,, Michael Schill, Xin Liu (CLOUD)
      • 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?

      eantck rara

      Oct 8, 2019, 6:16:14 PM10/8/19
      to MSREDDY P, sonicproject,, Michael Schill, Xin Liu (CLOUD)

      Can someone please share the bridge details and today's meeting time?

      ~Thank you

      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


      Oct 12, 2019, 8:35:40 PM10/12/19
      to eantck rara, sonicproject,, Michael Schill, Xin Liu (CLOUD)

      You can join every Tuesday 8-9 AM PST. 

      In addition to that you could subscribe to, you would receive the invite from Xin from Microsoft. 


      Reply all
      Reply to author
      0 new messages