New Time: 6AM Pacific Wednesday. 3PM CET, 2PM GMT, 1930 India time US is on Standard Time. Pacific time is UTC+0800.
4 main topics today: Comments on BMWG Draft, Internship status, UNH Transition, IXIA equipment
|Discussion: Contribution on Containerized network benchmarking in BMWG session IETF-115||All|
email@example.com Sirdhar will contact.
firstname.lastname@example.org presented at IETF-115
Sridhar Rao Tested many similar scenarios - performance difference among with VM and without VM is negligible. Not really necessary to test. Minh needs to check this with colleagues Sridhar will share our teams results - part of Daniele's work. The reason people run VMs is for security reasons and resource isolation -WHEN Containers did not supply.
Parameters section: Cannot use a CNI independent of the Networking model (SRIOV or user space determines this)
Some Networking models listed are not relevant when performance is the priority. Are these even applicable when performance matters? maybe not. For example, their networking model includes Kernel space switching will perform poorly. Minh replies that ALL the Models are included. Need to categorize into good/bad perf. Minh agrees.
Performance Impacts: Major example is Number of Cores, which is not included in the Draft. Please add this. Minh agrees.
Section 3 clarify the use of Containers and Pods - used interchangeably now. need to clarify
Section 3 Some generalizations about CNI are not correct - Some CNI do not use user namespace
Figure 1 What is Container Engine? is it Container Run-time.
4.2 Some duplication on Container Network Plugin? Agree. Can use different CNI with same network Model - no difference. The SR-IOV networking model would make a big difference with other models, but CNI not so much. The Vswitch and the Networking model are closely tied together (Models with VPP are not possible with OVS, for example).
Section 4.3 CNI does not create it's own switch functions Also, which of 5 networking models does Calico fall. Figures in Section 4.3. Normal Calico does not use eBPF Calico should fall in section 4.3.1 figure, but needs to be fixed. (remove "VSwitch") and add Kernel routing tables in the user space vswitch block.
There was a Cillium eBPF scenario that was in the slides - this is not possible with the traffic gen and DPDK.
has connectivity working - should be finished by tomorrow.
author of eBPF bridge says has same problem.
Need to use Ansible for automation-this is key. There were some version issues, need older version?
Plan is to Finish-up by Friday . We hope it will go well for you!
Need to update with changes in December (12/2 for stable/nile was too early).
Given that our Pod terminated (time-out) is there any way to recover? Or better to start from scratch?
Can automate the IP addrs assignments for all the traffic links - How? Can Config.YAML really work? or is Ansible better?
|Testbed - IXIA support||Sridhar/Al|
Tim Gresham asks for resolution on this.
If we can get it, do we want it? No good without license! So, is a license still valid or available for update?
THEN - need to ship and install in UNH, get working there - IXIA help to do this.
Trevor Cooper says connected and powered on, but we still might have a license issue. Need Pierre's help.
this activity seems to have stalled ...
Pod 19 also not accessible - Dan Xu.
Progress for NILE Release
(summary: items 5,6,and 7 lack the necessary automated address discovery feature, defer)
Update OS versions
Tasks 1, 3, and 4have been completed/merged. Not doing 2. DONE
|2||Automate setting up eBPF-based CNIs - xdp, cilium, calico.|
setup - xdp,
|Patch submitted patch, will request review.|
Improve the ViNePerf Build Stability
Starting from the build to the 3 environments
Testing in-progress: either run in OS or K8s - 2 and 3 are challenging and 3 is the priority.
|4||eBPF Metrics Collection|
Task: Develop Tool to collect metrics from eBPF programs.
Existing tool, just running it with a script
Skywalking from Apache
skywalking-rover possible eBPF plugin in collectd -
propose for barometer or KDDI -
|Tasks below are deferred from Moselle - likely Defer Again because container networking support is poor and requires significant work-arounds.|
|5||Epic-VINEPERF-652:Enhance XTesting-ViNePerf Integration||Moved to Next Release||depends on 7|
|6||Task-VINEPERF-658:Enhance framework for XTesting-K8s Usecase||Partially done (reading results from output), Deployment tool.||1 task remains|
|7||Task-VINEPERF-654:XTesting-ViNePerf Integration Enhancement - Kubernetes|| Will not implement due to limitations with CNIs.|
Moved to Next release - if CNIs support this.
Need CNI to add flows automatically in Switches (Userspace-CNI, supports DPDK, OVS, VPP). Major impediment to integrate with X-Testing
Sridhar will check with Xavier if ARP resolution is supported in Prox as a switch