== Agenda ==

== Agenda ==

* On Demand agenda. '''Use this section to add your proposal to this meeting; do not use any other section''' (keep this template, please):

* On Demand agenda. '''Use this section to add your proposal to this meeting; do not use any other section''' (keep this template, please):

** June 5th:

** June 12th:

*** (ralonsoh): [RFE][quota] Implement "router_route" quota using the Neutron quota engine, replacing "max_routes" config option (https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2026489)

*** (nick): topic

**** Patch: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron/+/991024

**** CLI: missing --router-route quota parameter

*** (ralonsoh/marcin.wilk@canonical.com): Denote highest priority chassis after crash and BFD failover (https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron/+/989565)

**** I find this topic interesting: we have experienced this issue locally in our development servers

**** However, this is an notable behavior change that needs to be discussed. Should that be, for example, configurable??

** April 3rd:

*** (nick): topic

*** (cardoe) retiring networking-bgpvpn?

**** With the plan of https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/neutron-specs/specs/2026.2/bgp_evpn_type_5_route_support.html and the spec authors mentioning adding Type-2 in the future this replaces the functionality of networking-bgpvpn from a database standpoint / object modeling

**** https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/neutron-specs/specs/2026.2/bgp_evpn_type_5_route_support.html#changes-to-cli-and-rest-api

**** router create with VNI or auto-allocate requires admin operation which is what "openstack bgpvn create --route-target $VNI --project $PROJECT mybgpvpn" is which requires admin but then delegates that BGPVPN object to members of that project

**** router attachment as an extra step "openstack bgpvpn router assocation create --advertise_extra_routes mybgpvpn myrouter" as a member

**** the "openstack router add subnet --advertise-host myrouter mysubnet" is equal to "openstack router add subnet myrouter mysubnet" using the bgpnvpn associated router with "--advertise_extra_routes".

**** This all has the added flexibility of allowing multiple backends so that telco routers can have different bgpvpn backends to service this workload but since we're now moving this into neutron itself for OVN, will networking-bgpvpn be considered deprecated or retired?

* Ongoing discussions:

* Ongoing discussions:

* To be vetted for discussion:

* To be vetted for discussion:

* Approved RFE's:

* Approved RFE's:

** [https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bugs?field.tag=rfe-approved Approved RFE's]

** [https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bugs?field.tag=rfe-approved Approved RFE's]

** [https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/neutron-specs,n,z Pending Specs] - please review

** [https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/neutron-specs,n,z Pending Specs]

*** (amnik) Add spec for NFS-Ganesha extension in OVN Agent

**** https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron-specs/+/936063

** [https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:merged+project:openstack/neutron-specs,n,z Merged Specs]

** [https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:merged+project:openstack/neutron-specs,n,z Merged Specs]

* Other RFE's:

* Other RFE's: