--
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.
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
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sonicproject/CADavDeaRoh2ApMWWpnOXRK0qxRUfGd_ioAk%2Bdpv%3D5afhNEV--A%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sonicproject/CA%2BCxG%3D9_SB3QvemQyizHMbZWQSUa-EOLog_wqLucYY2SVug86w%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sonicproject/CA%2BCxG%3D9_SB3QvemQyizHMbZWQSUa-EOLog_wqLucYY2SVug86w%40mail.gmail.com.
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sonicproject/CANur7QTvXAjGnARUi2gF7tq3yPusD1%2B4ZqR0%2BPK1CDMFTc9FFA%40mail.gmail.com.
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sonicproject/CANur7QTQpoPUBfzYvjWTx4_wMZVeWC5%2B_BHre2qHLh3FwS8xeg%40mail.gmail.com.
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sonicproject/CADavDeZgQs%3DtjmEoSsaYR-vYivUdminjYgjQLr7uLhJWaKqGfA%40mail.gmail.com.
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.