You can find us online at RCE-CAS.com. You can find the entire back catalog there, all these episodes we've been doing for these good number of years here. I also have again here Jeff Squires from Cisco Systems and one of the authors of OpenMPI. Hey Brock, how's it going? All right, as for upcoming events, I will be in mid-March, mid to the end of March at University of Illinois at the Advanced Research Computing on Campuses which is part of the ACI-RF series of projects out there. I will be there. So if you're gonna be there, please drop by and say hello. Also, there's gonna be a number of deadlines coming up for the Exceed 16 Conference. That's the XSEDE, Extreme Scientific Engineering and Discovery Environment. This is the successor to Terrigrid. There's a whole number of items there coming up, tutorials, papers, other things coming up there. So please take a look at those if you're interested. Okay, so Brock, we got something a little different today. This is different than the normal straight old HPC software or vendor kind of thing that we normally do, but this is something actually people may have heard about in the news before because they have made the headlines a couple of times. We are gonna talk to the people from D-Wave, the quantum computing people. So Brock, I wonder if you could tell us who our guest is. Yeah, so our guest today is Denny Dahl, who is from D-Wave. Denny, take a moment to introduce yourself. Yeah, hey Brock. Yeah, I've been with D-Wave for a little more than four years. I'm a physicist and right now I'm actually at Los Alamos National Laboratory. I'm on assignment here. Los Alamos purchased a system from our company about a few months ago and I'm here helping users get up to speed. So can you tell us a little bit about D-Wave? Maybe a little bit of history? Oh yeah, sure. So D-Wave has actually been around for a lot longer than most people think. The company was founded in around year 2000. We've been using venture capital since then. We were founded by Jordy Rose, who was a physicist from the University of British Columbia up in Vancouver in Canada. Now, what can you tell us? Start at the high level here. What exactly is quantum computing? Because I think there's a lot of information out there, but from a semi-technical audience perspective, how would you describe what is quantum computing? Sure, regular computing, or as we actually call it now classical computing, classical computing starts from this notion of you've got a bit. You can control a bit. A bit can be a zero or a one. But over the last hundred years, physicists have realized that if you tunnel deeply enough through the layers of nature, at its heart, nature has this quantum mechanical aspect to it, which means systems are not just a zero or a one. They actually exist in these superposition states. And so the whole notion behind quantum computing is to start from that point of view and use the fundamental superposition aspect of really the basic building blocks of nature to build a different kind of computer than we normally think of having. And when you say different, what do you mean by that? Because it sounds like that is fundamentally different and is gonna affect everything from soup to nuts in the design. Absolutely, that's certainly true because with a classical computer, you can imagine that you've got a number and a register and another number and another register and you can ask the machine to add them together and you're gonna get a deterministic result. The same thing will happen every time. But with a quantum computer, at its very core, you don't just put a single piece of information into a quote register. A register and a quantum computer holds a whole superposition of different information states at the same time. And so when you operate on a collection of information like that, your results are necessarily probabilistic. So it means you have to think through your computing model starting all the way at the ground up. So why would we even wanna do this? I mean, normally we like to just do regular old math. So what's supposedly so great about quantum computing? Sure, it's a great question. The one of the guys in the physics community who made this suggestion that we should look at quantum computing decades ago was a fellow by the name of Richard Feynman. And Feynman observed that certain kinds of physics problems that you might wanna simulate on a computer can be simulated efficiently.  But there are certain kinds of systems in nature, Feynman observed, there are certain kinds of systems in nature that do not have this character. The so-called quantum physics systems cannot really necessarily be efficiently simulated on classical computers. And so Feynman made the suggestion, I think back in the 80s, actually, that in order to do a good efficient job of simulating some of these quantum physics systems in nature, we're going to have to build a new kind of computer, a quantum computer, as opposed to a classical one. So quantum computing, when you read it in the news, it's talked to kind of like, because it's holy grail, it's gonna solve all these problems. But you're actually building machines today. So what people think about as a perfect quantum computer, is that what you've actually got? And you've got a complete revolution, or are you like on the path there, and you've got something that's quantum-like? Oh, actually, good question. My personal opinion is where we are is on the path. We don't have today a perfect quantum computer. And I'm not actually personally convinced that such a thing as a perfect quantum computer will ever be buildable. But the idea that we have right now is we know how to put certain kinds of quantum mechanical devices together to make a useful quantum computing engine. It may not be the most general possible one that people may wish to, that they can envision. But what we have is kind of a starting point, which we think will allow people to get their feet wet and actually start to experience what quantum computing is like and how it differs from classical computing. All right, let's talk about one of those things. So the typical model of classical computing that is discussed is a Turing machine, right? It has a start and an end and a bunch of sequences that goes between the two to put it super crassly, right? Is that the same here, or are we looking at just a fundamentally different model? Well, that's a great starting point. In fact, after Richard Feynman made this suggestion that classical computers were not really gonna be great at simulating certain kinds of quantum physics systems, it took another person to sort of take the idea to the next level. And that was David Deutsch. And I think it was in the late 80s that Deutsch did kind of the reasonable thing, based on the idea that you have or that Alan Turing had decades ago, Deutsch said, let's take a Turing machine, which it does exactly as you said, it starts off in a state, it reads something from a tape, it looks up some information in a table, it writes down a new symbol on the tape and then it moves to a new square on the tape. So that's your classical Turing machine. Deutsch took that concept and he said, let's replace each of the steps in that process with quantum mechanical steps. And what that means, literally then, is that when this quantum Turing machine enters a new state, it's not actually a new state, but it's a superposition of states. So that was actually kind of the first or the next step forward in the whole quantum computing thought process. The idea was, how do we take something as simple as a Turing machine and recast it in the framework of quantum mechanics? So how do you exactly represent these quasi states within a superposition of two states? And also a lot of times in quantum mechanics, you have a probability of being in one state or the other. So you are more towards one or the other, but you don't necessarily know. How do you do all of this? How do you represent it? Sure, well, the representation, in some sense, starts off being very simple. Instead of a qubit being a zero or a one, the words we say is a qubit can be in a superposition of the zero and the one state. And literally what that means mathematically is, instead of just saying, my qubit is zero or my qubit is one, now I have a weight. And it turns out to be a complex number, but I associate a complex number with the zero state and another complex number with the one state. And the magnitude of those two complex numbers tells me, in effect, does my system lean towards being a zero or does it lean towards being a one or maybe it's in a 50-50 superposition of those two states? So that's the starting point. That's how one qubit is described mathematically. And then if you wanna build on that and build a system that has gotten multiple qubits, this is where things get fascinating real quickly. So the concept in the quantum mechanical world that you hear talked about a lot is this notion of entanglement, which sounds like a very deep concept. It sounds like things being tied up in a knot. The easiest way to explain entanglement is to first explain its opposite. So the opposite of entanglement is this notion of separability. And separability is so common to us that we hardly even, you know, it's such a basic concept in our world that we hardly ever even think about it. So the notion of separability is if I have two separate systems like the door in my office and a filing cabinet, you know, the door in my office can be open or closed and the filing cabinet can be open or closed. So if you ask me what's going on in my office, I tell you about the door, I tell you about the filing cabinet and separately those two pieces of information tell you everything you need to know. That's separable. But it turns out in the quantum mechanical world that principle you cannot apply. So it turns out if you entangle two systems like the door and the filing cabinet, it's not enough just for me to tell you about the state of the door and then to tell you about the state of the filing cabinet. I also have to tell you about the possibility of, you know, the door being closed and the filing cabinet being closed. The door being closed, the filing cabinet being open. The door being open, the filing cabinet being closed and then they're both open. So all four of those possibilities gets their own weight in this big superposition. And that's kind of what's at the heart of some of the power in quantum computing. Because as I add another qubit to my system, the number of weights that I have to provide to you to describe that superposition state, that number of weights doubles with every new qubit that I add into the system. So to describe the state of an n qubit system, I actually need to provide the number of weights to you, which is 2 raised to the power n. And that exponential right there is at the heart of what we think is causing quantum computing to be much more powerful than classical computing. So if I understand you, and I have to admit, my head is exploding a little bit right here, so I'm not 100% sure that I do. If I understand you correctly, it sounds like there's a probabilistic nature and, for lack of a better word, a multiplicative nature. Is there an inherent parallelism in the different states that are represented simultaneously? Yeah, absolutely. Some people that I've talked to actually think of a quantum computer that has n qubits, they think of that as being, in effect, a computer that's got a degree of parallelism equal to 2 raised to the power n. Now, quite honestly, I think that that's maybe a little bit of an oversimplification. But in a sense, it is the case that a quantum computer is effectively computing with this huge number of possible different states at the same time. So that is a form of parallelism. And that really does seem to be very intricately tied up with the phenomenal power that may be accessible to us through quantum computing. So then, is this the idea that I have heard, again, maybe this is super crass way of describing it. But you're actually, you can try multiple inputs simultaneously, say this 2 to the n different inputs simultaneously. And that's how you get this inherent parallelization and inherent power of what a quantum machine is. Right. I think that's not a bad sort of a fuzzy way to think about what a quantum computer is doing. The only reason I'm a little bit hesitant to just give you a fully unqualified yes answer is that some people in the field are very sensitive to that particular description of a quantum computer. For example, Scott Aronson is, I've read his blog a lot in the past. And I know that he's very, he reacts strongly and negatively towards that particular description of a quantum computer. I actually don't think it's a bad starting point. But once you internalize that intuition, you have to go a little bit further and recognize that it's not really the case that each of these parallel instantiations, they don't behave independently. There's a very, very tight coupling between all these different so-called parallel degrees of freedom. And so it's not quite like you can tell each one of these different parallel instances of a quantum computer to go and do its own thing at the same time, because there is a very tight coupling between all these different degrees of freedom. So what is this good for, actually? So you described a number of problems that we can solve directly, numerically. But it doesn't sound, this is all statistical. If I wanted to know exactly how much money it was in my bank account, I don't want to be plus or minus $0.35 or $35. So what sort of problems are these systems good for? Well, that's a great question. And it's very, very important to understand that there are a lot of problems, computing problems, in the real world that are completely adequately addressed by classical computers. Quantum computers are meant or thought to be able to attack a very special category of problems. So here was a big thing that really just kind of electrified the field. And it was about a little more than 20 years ago. In the early 1990s, a mathematician by the name of Peter Schor realized that you could actually use one of these hypothetical quantum computers that no one had built at that point. And in fact, even today, only very, very, very small versions of that kind of hypothetical quantum computer have been built. But Peter Schor realized that if you had one of those machines, then you could solve a math problem that has been a very important problem. You could solve it far more efficiently than you could on classical computers. And so Peter Schor's insight has come to be known as Schor's algorithm. And what it allows you to do is take huge numbers, integers, not floating point numbers, but integers, huge integers, and then factor them. And the reason that that kind of special sounding math problem attracted so much attention is it's a difficult problem, especially on classical computers. And the difficulty that problem has been used to actually build a significant amount of the encryption infrastructure that we rely on every day when we do e-commerce and other kinds of secure transactions. So the promise that a quantum computer might be able to actually break encryption like that was really a revolutionary idea. And that had the effect of energizing a lot of people in the physics and computer science and math community to start looking at this possibility of quantum computers way more seriously. So actually, that's probably the most famous thing that we've always heard about with quantum computers that, if they exist, that effectively all of our encryption that we currently use is broken. I've always heard described as you can pretty much simultaneously look at all possible answers. But it's really just this multiplicative factor you were talking about earlier. It can look in a much wider space much more quicker than a classical computer. Yeah, I think that's a fair way to describe it. So that was, you know, a Shor's factoring algorithm was certainly one of the first most dramatic suggestions about what quantum computers could do. And, you know, in the intervening couple of decades since then, of course, a lot of researchers have looked at this question of, what kinds of things could you do with a quantum computer that you can do much more efficiently as opposed to a classical computer? And there have been a few other answers that have come out of all that research. So it really looks like quantum computers, the attraction then is that there's a very special class of problems that it looks like they can attack efficiently. Not all problems, but some of them. And some of them look like very high-value problems, high enough value to really motivate some serious, you know, serious investment in effort and money to try to see if these things could be made real. So this sounds like one, they're not necessarily going to replace classical processors for things where we want a very deterministic answer. And two, should I not be putting anything online because it's all encryption broken for every D-Wave customer that's out there? Well, we're not at the point, so great question. One of the interesting things that's happened between the time when Peter Schor articulated his algorithm and today is there has been a new kind of quantum computer that has been suggested by researchers. The original model of the quantum computer that sort of dated all the way back to David Deutsch and the work that we're talking about earlier, that's what's called, today it's kind of referred to as a circuit or gate model quantum computer. And sometimes people, you know, they think of those as the quote universal quantum computer. Those seem to be extremely hard to build. The good news is that in the late 90s and around the year 2000, several different research groups independently suggested a different kind of an architecture for a quantum computer. And that's the so-called adiabatic quantum computer. So the reason I'm kind of going off on this tangent right now is the adiabatic quantum computer is significantly easier to build than the gate model machines. And so this is where D-Wave is right now. D-Wave has built and we are, you know, marketing and selling an adiabatic quantum computer. But the reason this distinction is important is that Schor's factoring algorithm does not run on the adiabatic quantum computer that's made by D-Wave. So the fact that Los Alamos, Google, NASA, Lockheed have access to quantum computers, that does not at all mean that anything that you've got encrypted or any of your banking transactions right now are at risk. We're a long, long way from being able to attack things like RSA with the current technology that we have. So then what are people using your machines for? So again, Brock said encryption is the most famously known problem. You've said there's other classes of problems. What kind of things are they doing? Can you talk about those? Sure. The thing that is easiest to describe really is optimization. It's the natural programming model for our system is radically different from the programming model for a classical computer. So instead of having instructions that do things like add and multiply and divide, do a logic test, branch, et cetera, et cetera, instead of having instructions like that, our computer really has essentially one instruction. But that one instruction is very, very powerful and flexible. What that instruction does is effectively it encapsulates an entire optimization problem into a single quantum machine instruction. And so one of the ways that we kind of help people, we provide this metaphor for thinking about the way the machine works. If you imagine a mountain landscape, you know, it's got at each point of latitude and longitude, you know, you're either at a mountain or you're in a valley or something like that. The question then is, out of this complicated mountain landscape, where is the lowest point in terms of altitude? And so that's kind of a nice metaphor for what our system does, because our system, each instruction that our system executes encodes what we think of as an optimization problem like that, you're looking for the lowest altitude or it might be the highest value. And so each instruction allows the computer to search through this large, large search space and then return to you a point which represents a very, very good solution to an optimization problem. So we think of optimization as being one of the key, you know, the key application areas for our system. Then the other ones we think about are machine learning. We believe that it's possible to cast a lot of machine learning problems in the language of optimization. And so we think we might be able to really bring, bring, you know, kind of new algorithmic techniques to machine learning through the quantum computing paradigm. And then the last one is this thing that we call sampling. Sampling is this notion where, you know, you've got, you've got some probability space and you're interested in picking samples out of this probability space according to some predefined set of probabilities. This is, you know, for example, you know, one of the things that physicists do a lot is they run these so-called particle transport codes where you might imagine you've got a beam of particles that, you know, impinges on some very complicated shapes and then the particle transport code is a Monte Carlo. In other words, it uses random numbers to sort of try to figure out, you know, where these fluxes of particles ends up. So that's an example where you're effectively sampling from a complicated distribution. And we think something like that, we might be able to attack that very effectively with this kind of adiabatic quantum computer as well. So those are the three areas we're trying to focus on. Optimization, machine learning, and sampling or Monte Carlo. So you said something there though and you use very careful language that I'm not sure that the average computing person would understand. So you're talking about, you know, like finding a minima or maxima. One, how do you avoid the usual problem of getting stuck in a local minima or maxima? And then also these are all against stochastic problems. So do you have to run this like many, many times and take like the best result returned and how are you confident in that actual result? Yeah, sure. So the first point you brought up, the whole notion of, you know, how do you actually navigate around this landscape and find a good value? What we do is so different from what a classical computer does that some of the limitations that a classical computer runs up against, they simply don't even apply to what our system is doing. So typically with a classical computer, if you've got a complicated landscape and you're looking for a minima, your classical computer somehow represents a point in the landscape. And then with each computational step, you can imagine perturbing that point in the landscape a little bit and you look to see whether, you know, you're moving in a good direction or a bad direction. And if you're moving in a bad direction, you discard that step. But if you're moving in a good direction, you'll keep that step. And hopefully by doing that over and over again, you'll go down, down, down, down, down hill and you'll end up in a good valley. So that kind of roughly is, it's a rough description of how a lot of classical computers approach an optimization problem like that. But I think what you're alluding to is a real problem, which is what if you end up in a valley but there's a much better deeper valley nearby you but you can't get from here to there because there are mountains between you and the deeper valley. So that's, you could think of that as being a barrier and with classical computing, it's really, really tough to figure out how to build smarts into a program so that it can know that it should climb up and over some mountains because on the other side of the mountains is gonna be a better answer. So those barriers are very hard to deal with in the classical computing world. But with our system, the system is not at one point on the landscape. Instead, our system starts off effectively being like a cloud spread over the entire landscape at once. That's what the superposition states that we were talking about earlier allow us to do. So our system effectively starts off in a very different place from a classical computer. We don't start at one point on the landscape. We're kind of spread over the entire landscape at once. And so this actually allows us to make use of a very powerful phenomena of quantum physics which is called tunneling. And this is one of the differences between the classical physics world and the quantum physics world. In the classical world, if you don't have enough energy to get over a barrier, you're stuck. Like if you're in a roller coaster and your roller coaster car is not going fast enough to make it up and over a hill, then you'll go part way up the hill and you'll fall back. But in the quantum mechanical world, it's absolutely possible for a system not to have enough energy to go over a barrier, yet the quantum mechanical tunneling effect allows a system to effectively go right through the barrier. And so that quantum tunneling is one of the things that we've tested and we know that our system exhibits that capability. And it's one of the things that allows us to do a much better job of finding those minima in a large complicated landscape. I don't want to go on too long here, but there's one other point you mentioned which is these systems are stochastic. That's absolutely true. So when we actually set up one of these optimization problems, there's a certain amount of setup cost associated with defining that problem and passing it to the quantum processor. So typically once we've done that setup work, we won't ask for just one good value for our optimization problem. We'll ask it to return 10 or 100 or 1,000 good values. And since the system is stochastic because of the quantum mechanical nature, then if we ask for 1,000 answers back, we will typically get different answers and some of those may be great answers and some of them may be a little bit higher up in the landscape. But getting back a collection of answers very quickly is one of the kind of cool, powerful features of the adiabatic quantum computer. So how does one even write software for this? Because what you're talking about is so fundamentally different from what I know about writing software. But then again, I've been writing traditional software for my entire career. Do you have a different programming language? Is it a different compiling method? Is it a whole different way about thinking of writing software? Right, it's not so much that the languages are different. In fact, you can program our computer using C or Python or we actually have an interface from MATLAB too. The issue is more that the way you actually put together a quantum machine instruction for our system requires you to build a data structure in C or Python and that data structure represents a quantum machine instruction which you then can go and execute. Okay, that's actually super cool. It's incredible to be able to write Python to write something so powerful as this. Let me ask you this. You must have a separate quantum processor. Is this thing driven by a traditional processor with a traditional type of operating system that you can kind of view the D-Wave as an analog to classic machines, an accelerator? Absolutely, yeah. So you do not ever interact directly with the quantum processor. And that really is, that's exactly how we refer to it. We have this chip which is the quantum processor but sitting in front of the chip is a completely standard classical processor where we run a lot of server and management code. So when I'm programming the quantum processor, I actually, I'll write C or Python or MATLAB and a lot of the action takes place between a client system that I'm sitting on and that kind of front end or host system. But after I've done the work necessary to actually create a quantum machine instruction and I'm ready to execute it, then I'll invoke a special command in C or Python or whatever and that's the queue for the host processor to actually send the quantum machine instruction down to the quantum processor and it goes through its exotic quantum mechanical dance and then reports the results back to me. Okay, so quantum mechanics though, to be able to get quantum like behavior observed four years of nuclear engineering degree basically told me you need to have very tightly controlled environments. Even, you know, being above absolute zero introduces information into the system, trying to directly read from the system introduces, you're governed by Heisenberg, right? So how do you even create the physical environment to even support these quantum processors? Yeah, that's a huge challenge and what you're saying is exactly right. These quantum mechanical wave functions is the technical term for these things. These quantum mechanical wave functions are very easy to disturb and if you disturb them, they lose their coherence and they lose their power from the point of view of quantum computing. So we work really, really hard to create this special environment for the quantum processor and it's running at very, very low temperature, very hard vacuum. It's vibration isolated. It's shielded from magnetic fields and radiation. So there's just a tremendous amount of engineering required to create the very, very quiet, low noise environment for the quantum processor. It was like a deal, you got five tons of equipment to support a little thing the size of a nickel. Well, actually, that's exactly true and it's kind of funny when you compare our system to an HPC system. Our system consumes on the order of 25 kilowatts, which is kind of peanuts in the HPC world. But the thing that's even stranger about that power consumption is if you look at the quantum processor itself, the power consumption on the quantum processor is virtually at zero and the vast majority that 25 kilowatts is, it's used to just power the front end servers and we have pumps, compressors, refrigerators, all that kind of stuff. So it really is a very, the quantum processor itself is essentially like almost zero power dissipation. Now, I'm gonna go back to the architecture here a bit. So if you look at this kind of as an accelerator, how does the data work? This is, and again, I could very well would just be stuck in today's model of computing with accelerators, but one of the traditional problems we have is you have up in main memory, this whole chunk, your data set, which could be large and you have to transfer that data down to the accelerator and then the processors down on the accelerator chomp on that. Is that the same model here? Or where does, how does the data fit into how your processor operates? That's my question, I suppose. Sure, yeah. So if you have a reasonably sized application, and you've got some kind of data set, and that's gotta be managed by the front end processor, the classical host. The quantum processor, it takes in one quantum machine instruction at a time, just like a classical processor, takes in one machine instruction at a time. And then when the quantum processor gets its quantum machine instruction, it goes through this process of looking for the best points in this huge search space and those get returned back to the host. Okay, so is it really kind of the same problem that we have in classical computing? That I'm still, even if I load a cache line or much of the cache at the same time, I'm still looking at one 32-bit or 64-bit quantity at a time by the processor. Are you, you have the same kind of architectural design in your processor? Absolutely, that's a great analogy. With our machine, the machine executes one quantum machine instruction at a time, and that quantum machine instruction has a bunch of information that you can pack into it, but it's certainly not going to be able to allow you to pack megabytes or gigabytes of data into it. So in the same way with a classical computer that we have these great algorithmic techniques for taking a huge data problem and breaking it down into lots and lots and lots of small instructions, we're looking at the same kind of strategies in the quantum world where even though that we've got a big data problem, we're trying to figure out how to decompose that into bite-sized chunks where each bite-sized chunk now fits into the quantum processor. So to increase performance on one of these things, it's probably a lot better to just keep making it a system that has more qubits, right? Because you get exponentially more states you can simultaneously look at than the way we would do on a normal system, which is increase the number of cores or increase the number, which would be unattached, with no relationship between them, or increasing class computing. Well actually, Brock, you make a very interesting point there because in increasing performance in parallel computing, we add more cores, which means we're looking at more data simultaneously. Yeah, but that'd be linear. Which is analogous to adding more qubits. Am I off base here? No, it is analogous. So that's one way that we wanna make the system more powerful, more qubits. That's kind of the easiest metric for people to grab onto. But in addition to just qubits, the other piece of the architecture that's very, very important is what we call couplers. Okay, I'll bite. What's a coupler? Well, a coupler is the way that a user can cause one qubit to influence another qubit. So if you imagine that each qubit has kind of a built in tendency to either turn on or turn off, that's okay. But unless you can cause one qubit to influence other qubits, then you haven't really built any interesting interactions into the system. So in addition to the qubits of the system, we also have thousands of couplers. And those couplers are the way the user or the programmer kind of expresses the influence that one qubit has on another qubit. Okay, so you just talked about two methods slash metrics of increasing performance. I mean, what else? I mean, I feel like we just keep going down the rabbit hole.  What else you got? Well, I'm gonna try not to blow your mind too much here but the last thing that we really fight constantly in the kind of the engineering of these systems is the thermal effects and noise. I think Brock, you were referring to this earlier. If you have a system at finite temperature that means you've got energy sloshing around in the system and that energy can disrupt your quantum state. So that's a bad thing. We're always trying to figure out ways to reduce those thermal effects and very closely related stuff is what we think of as being kind of like intrinsic control error. The idea is, the way I think about it is if you're driving a high performance car and you've got your hands on the steering wheel, you want the front wheels of the car to respond very, very sensitively to the motions of the steering wheel. But there's a mechanical linkage between the steering wheel and the wheels and so you don't expect that it's perfectly going to reflect. The front wheels aren't gonna perfectly reflect what you're doing with the steering wheel. In the same way with our computer, you can dial in all these weights for the qubits and these coupling strengths but the system may not perfectly reflect the landscape that you've tried to dial in. And so we're trying to constantly minimize that sort of that control error while we're also adding qubits and adding couplers. Sure. So obviously these systems require a lot of special TTUs but there's a lot of people out there who know about these different theories but also they require these special, hard vacuum, really low temperature. How can someone just get access to one of these systems because I assume they're probably not the price of a desktop? Yeah, the list price is rather high and there are not a lot of these systems out there. We have some in the lab back in Vancouver where all the systems are built and then Google's got one that they share with NASA and Lockheed's got one that they share with University of Southern California and Los Alamos has one as well or they're in the process of getting one. So fundamentally if you're interested in actually getting access to one of these systems, the model is kind of a cloud model, quantum cloud. You're going to get access over the internet to one of these systems that I mentioned and the way that you're gonna probably do it is having an affiliation with either a university or some research organization that has ties with one of the places I mentioned. And then you talk to your buddies and you say I've got a great idea for an application that could run on one of these quantum computers. Please tell me how to go about getting time. Okay, and where can people find out more about D-Wave systems and quantum computing? Well, a great way is to start with our website. We've got a website at www.dwavessis.com and we do our best, we're a small company but we do our best to respond to invitations that are kind of have real merit and interest. We go out and give talks. I'm gonna be in Washington DC next week and we'll visit a number of entities out there and try to educate them about what we've been able to do in the last year and drum up some interest. So check out our website, that's a great starting point and we've got, oops, I'm trailing off into nothing this year. I think the right answer is website. Yeah, this was fascinating. I feel like we could talk to you for hours because like I said, there feels like there's just so much more down the rabbit hole we could go but we are somewhat limited.  Thank you for your time. Sure, I hope you guys got what you needed. Thanks much for your questions. Thank you.


Okay, so let's go ahead and get started then. So we have recurring this call with the main the main network service mesh meeting we have the NSM documents call which occurs weekly every Wednesday at the same time as this meeting and We also have the NSM use case call which occurs every second fourth and fifth At every Monday or sorry every second fourth and fifth Monday at this time as well There is also a new CNCF telecom user group, which I'm calling the tug which Is every first and third of Monday, so they alternate between NSM use cases and and the CNCF telecom user group We had our first kickoff in KubeCon This this last week and there will be a second meeting in Shanghai We there there is also a CNCF networking Working group as well, which occurs every two weeks on Tuesday at 9 a.m So I'm not sure if this is if that's going to if that's this week or if it's next week, so If someone could work that out, that'd be very good so events KubeCon EU is now a wrap and We had several we had several talks on introduction deep dive. We ended up with a few talks on in the In the FIDO and we also had a MD LFM Coordinated networking groups that they went on as well. That's that discuss the integration between NSM and FIDO and Future things that I expect to to see and we also ended up discussing about the X Factor CNF and The telecom user group ended up talking quite a bit about The potential certification process of like what does it mean to be a CNF? So that is a that is a big discussion that we're going to end up having with the industry Over at the very minimum the next few months and not longer So it's definitely good to make sure that people here participate with With those discussions and those discussions is my guess will probably end up happening within the CNCF telecom user group and Likely a few other venues as well. We will post those as they come up Is there anything that anyone wants to discuss with at the KubeCon I Think we've got some stuff down at a KubeCon retrospective when we get there. Okay, we will do that for their retrospective then So a couple things coming up as well that are not on the current agenda There is a Elephant event that is that I was made aware of that at the very minimum tailor will be there Which is Which is I think it was an elephant DDF. So if there's anyone who wants to so that this will be held in See, I should kind of details on this In Stockholm in Stockholm, that's right so if there's anyone who wants to Effectively represent the Add a seven this particular event and and talk with people and build up some awareness. That'd be that'd be fantastic I am meeting with with We do have some people in some of the elephant community So we have like people like Prem who do work with ODL And we're also having conversations with a couple people from Dunks in the fabric to work out how to bring some of their network services into Into NSM I will discuss more with that as as I learn And once once I learn the details and we were if we can work out if there's good alignment there or not We have KubeCon China coming up which is going to be in Shanghai and We have Nikolai and I have an intro maintainer track coming up there And there's also going to be second issue of the Telecom user group kickoff. I Don't know. Yeah, so probably it's worth mentioning And I hope to be able to join this time Yeah, Nikolai had the unfortunate time schedule of being at the booth during the telco user group kickoff He was there in spirit We so we have So we have all as well Before that there's also an event we'll go ahead and and I'll get the details for it pretty soon there is a user space meeting in Bordeaux, France for a dbtk user space It's I guess that's like a mini conference and this So if it sits the Thursday and Friday before ONS Europe, which I believe occurs on Monday Tuesday and Wednesday the call for papers on that is On May 31st So if anyone wants to talk about dbtk and NSM there that would be a good venue to put in a talk But the deadline is literally in a couple of days. So today's the 28th so the deadline is Probably depending on time zone Wednesday or Thursday We have ONS Europe coming up in Antwerp call for papers ends in June 16th we have MEF 2019 and Which is coming in Los Angeles in November 18th or 22nd and we have cube con And a native con North America and San Diego, which the call for papers is currently open and closes July 12th so if anyone would like to Give a presentation on NSM. I'm I'm certain that will run some of the intro Will add some of the intro and deep dive talks to it as well, but there's some there's always room for for additional topics as well Are you talking about the cube con now? That was Yeah, no, no, no, I just wanted to make a small remark about the cube con North America I mean, we still have time for planning etc. Etc. But My impression from the last from From keep coming you was that these two two sessions of 35 minutes are not enough. I mean Once people mean you open the For questions people start asking a lot and it's good to have the discussion So my suggestion would be if we have to choose again between an 85 minute slot if I'm not wrong and 235 minutes lots. I would really vote for a single 85 minutes lot so that we have more time to I mean we had enough of intros and deep dives and let's just just Have something that that's more open for questions and discussions that mean That's a good observation. Um, I mean we we also had the problem in in you kind of you that From what I understand at both of our talks that were people being turned away at the door because the room was completely full so Yeah, and for context each room held to 200 people According to the organizer, so each room 200 people we had about 10 or 15 standings. So, yeah, we were We were running very very good capacities Yeah Yeah, and I think that's a good observation a the one thing that I with the 85 minute one is I think there'll be a bit more preparation up front because More likely we they may ask for some type of a hands-on thing So we should make sure that we get the details on that But I actually strongly agree with you as well like 35 minutes is like crunch time and We end up with the one of the other things that makes it problematic Is there were a lot of people in the deep dive that had not attended the intro? Yeah, and so they're asking questions that were covered in the intro and So we ended up having to rehash some of the information So a any five-minute session would fix that problem. I think we've said wait straight into the cube kind of your retrospective Yeah, yeah Perfect Yeah, so I mean it went really well. We do get mentioned in a keynote Which is always good and we got a lot of mentioned. I mean there my passion was that the keynote was all about us More or less. So mentioned is too weak of an expression. My Basically that the main topic of the keynote And so that was really good The the videos and slides are already up for the event page I have been tracking Google analytics Against the network service mesh.io page. So we have 870 users in the last week come through which is a big jump for us and then we also had You know, I've also been I was also using QR codes in order to track Different campaigns attached to QR codes So we know how many people scan the keynote QR code or how many people scan the network service mesh intro QR code Or even how many scans we got from the QR code stickers so Am I muted? Yeah. So one thing that I wanted I I have put here the link to the telco user telecom user group kickoff presentation And the video is on YouTube already. I have posted it into the 2g channel on cncf Just for reference if anyone is interested, but I Actually, I liked a lot this slide. I'm still about to watch the video and to see what actually was discussed here I think my observation from from From this slide here and my conclusion for this is okay, we're part of this white landscape I mean, there are a lot of things there. So what I would really end I have some something in the end of the word group call if we managed to get to it like their old maps Think that I'm trying to bring for a couple of calls My my main observation here would be we're part of a white landscape We should try to start interoperate with some of these guys Around us to just have our roots there, you know connections strong connections Not be just we are Another bullet in the list. I mean we should be part of the landscape strongly connected to the other guys Just something about the deep dive you You talked about the composite and how to write an endpoint Nikolai Mm-hmm. Yep. Okay, and during this demo or this This intro to the SDK You are showing that you are using a VPP agent based composite. Okay That was that was the example. Yes. Yes, but it was really confusing for a lot of colleagues ask me if then An endpoint has to be VPP based to be an endpoint You see so it doesn't necessarily Dr. Realize is it does have to be cloud native if you write it up on which means it has to be a user space data plane It could just but and if you look at the space of things that actually work as user space data planes It's basically VPP or write something DPDK based from scratch Does that make sense of course, but you are also have the option to to use a pair of v8 You see all of me. Can I raise them? Yeah, you can do. Yes, you can literally do Whatever you you feel like doing That's why in one of the slides I was pointing to our examples Repo where actually there are only one of the examples is based on VPP everything else is pure Like even more simpler. Okay, not one to two of the examples Sorry are basically but others are more or less simpler Simple examples, but they are not straightly bound to be now The reference to VPP was because we already have the ACL filtering there We have the cross-connect as a concept out of the box. That's the point But if you introduce these concepts yourself and you implement them on some other platform like DPDK Then then there's no no problem with that. Yeah, I know all of that and That's what I'm trying to explain afterward, but Thank you. Yeah. Yeah, it's a good. It's really confusing when you see when you see your example There is a lot of confusion between the data pass which is running the VPP and VPP is running also in the pod That's a really good point. Did they was there something else particularly they had in mind for writing Network service in points and does the data path? Was there some other thing to use in the data path for the network service in points that your colleagues had in mind Not really, but it was only the fact that They told me yes, it's a VPP based project So you have to run DPP in the database. You have to run VPP in your endpoints We probably need to be clear about that because you don't even have to use VPP for the data plane You know Data plane that is not VPP based if they wanted to I think that we should start calling this data plane because I think that this is something that actually creates a confusion because in our glossary we Moved away from this on the data plane is essentially the chain of CNNs that turn on top So we call this kind of forwarding elements or forwarding plane or something along those lines Yeah part of part of something that I'm doing to That will help in this space is I'm I'm having a conversation with the tungsten fabric people in a in their main hall next week and So we're going to discuss two areas one of them is the network services as I described which I think is probably going to be the highest value area for them but also put the potential of getting them as a As a data plane as well and getting them to implement the data plane API and I think if we if they were to implement the data plane API, they'll give us a really good feedback on where on Where the API is lacking so we can get something that's a That's not that's we don't just say is generic, but it's probably generic and Simultaneously that they can they can give us with with a dish they can give additional assistance in And advice on how well it integrates so so hopefully if they agree and decide to go down that path and then We'll have something more than just BPP to Talk about in some of these in some of these conversations And in part of we we are also looking even we started at the conference looking at How we can implement a very simple kernel based and I actually I found an issue today just just for reference just to have it there Just a simple Linux kernel based forwarding Just to yeah, we have something as a baseline that says this is what you can do And if you want advanced features use some of the other guys So Frederick on the tungsten fabric integration Does it mean that this would be with the V router of Juniper or Is it going to be like Tungsten fabric natively managing or talking with the NSM via gRPC Well, they'll definitely be a gRPC component I don't know what that'll look like just yet because it depends on on what they want to do and what they want to showcase It sounds to me that they were interested in doing a something that was tungsten fabric related as the as a Kubernetes As a data plane that's that sits within the Kubernetes part okay, I I'm also going to ask them to look at something that is similar to to the ODL path because one of our goals is To be able to integrate multiple multiple groups and there's there's areas where ODL absolutely shines especially with the net comp support and There's other areas where tungsten fabric really shines that are complementary So I'm what I want to do is I want to try to make sure that we find what areas are complementary to To NSM and in the community so that we can get good alignment and in the long run sure them I mean there'll be some healthy competition in certain areas We want to find out that early alignment in for for the areas where they don't cover each other Okay. Yeah, because they also have the V router component, which is the data plane part So that would be interesting where and we can add if they aren't looking to integrate with V router We can add one of the data plane to the list of NSM supporter data plans Yeah, I'm gonna have a talk with one of their with one of the People from juniper this week and he's gonna give me a better understanding because I really don't understand tungsten fabric Okay, it's do like what it really does and but once once he I have a conversation with them then I'll Then I'll be in a call with them next week to try to work out that alignment If you're interested in Helping a bit with that as well. Like I definitely would appreciate some feedback Yeah, in fact, I think someone from juniper had pinged me. I'll probably connect back with them and then Point you to the discussion. What are you planning to show? Thank you?  Let's say I don't have any other things on the on the Kubecon you other than Slides and videos should should be on the events page and Videos are starting to show up the actual events themselves. So I was Notified that they've already started to put content up. I have not checked to see if Everything is there. We have posted them to to the NSM channel the video the two videos are there. I mean for NSM Page, yeah So yeah, the video is already up there. You can go watch them. They're they're they're picking up views And you know just generally speaking the interest the Kubecon of you was wrong We ran out of stickers we had a thousand stickers. Yeah, we ran out of stickers pretty much on the first day So yes, the lesson of that lesson learned bring more stickers lots more stickers. I Managed to save a couple for China. So I'll have something to bring there You've been hoarding them. Yeah, how long does it take to make stickers by the way? I Ordered them It takes about four days to make stickers So I ordered them like Sunday weekend before You know the week is the Sunday of the week before Kubecon. I had them by a Wednesday So it does not take long Okay, so and how much are they and I'm costing you as well.  I think and they get cheaper when you order more so Okay, cool. Okay, so Let's move Down the gender then So we have social media community team Updates I have copied only the link to the account because We might Want to have some updates here. I don't know who is here from Yeah, I'm not saying Lucina on so they're probably in the CNCF The main scene or the main CNCF call which occurs every other week So we lose them every other week. Yep, the top call happens. Yeah so but we are We're trucking right along in terms of our followers work the 221 now, which is good And we got a lot of treating happening and there's a lot of things being retweeted and you know, we're all it's going really well Yeah, let's let's make sure we we mark down to 21 then I'll add that to To the current followers that way we can track over track over time as well. Yeah so Fred do we do you have any updates for the I'm clicking here on the network service mesh release notes? I guess not incredibly changed since last week Yeah, I did not work on it last week But I'm in terms of in terms of the release notes I'll go ahead and I'll give it a pass today and then we can do another We can run it Again past Jeffrey tomorrow since he wasn't since Jeffrey was not at the last call I want to get his input on on how the release notes are looking and and With with that once once we're happy with where they are and then we can We can set it to the side until we're ready to do the actual release I mean give it one more pass for any last-minute thing to change Okay, you see here something about our table limits that probably needs to be set as a limitation there And We have the CI stabilization Hey, what are your observations here? Okay, I guess we have all the relevant people on the coast so we can talk about this I mean it seems like things are getting getting better But it's still not quite stable. I haven't been following this one last week Dude, does anyone else have any observations as to where we stand? I Have mine, but I will let Andre Oh Yeah, we still have some of the tests failing sometimes Mostly it's related to EPN-based tests. They have added a few fixes and probably as Some of our guys found to be related to some issues still exists But it's not so critical actually As before so from my point of view it's a Much much much better situation then I mean at some point we get a lot of Problems with the public or specifically leaking resources, etc, etc So I would say that the CI in general is in much better shape and then the tests themselves also are behaving Not that bad. So I am running kind of a parallel CI just on a circle CI for my examples rep Okay, my it's not mine. It's there Yeah So, yeah, so there my observation is that things are behaving pretty stable. I mean Examples are just a user of the core components like the admission controller network service manager and the forwarding plane I would really like to rename some pods there but If you just want to deploy it on a plain cluster and deploy some of the examples on top it works more or less Stable now. There is some strange issue where the ordering of the deployment matters, but okay, I will try to figure out the integration test and Send it for more investigation, but I mean I am more more or less I can say that I'm happy with whatever I see from the core components We have just integrated the latest Release of the pp which was released yesterday to point one point one Which should help us? Have a better IPv6 support amongst other things So I think that we are moving into the right direction. We have outlined actually I'm great have outlined a number of issues that hitting We need to tackle before we do the branching But I think that we have very good chances to do the branch for the release this week And there's no escape this time. I think that would be awesome. That would be awesome We can quickly check the Backlock if we don't have anything to say more about the CI. I really think that the CIA is Is moving in the right direction and Andre is also putting some thoughts into improving it so But this this would definitely be something after the branch Yeah, yeah, yeah, also it will be related totally for Integration testing. Yeah Yeah, as much as I'm in favor of what Andre, would you agree not before the branch fall Yeah, what would your entire CI system just before release not a good move Yeah, yeah so maybe we need some Some some iterations here on the on the backlog and see what's critical for us and what's not What's okay, what can be actually left? For the next Release Think that we have a lot of the things done now. I mean in the dance date. There's a lot We have some things in flight, which are not that much mostly my from the things that he we have outlined already in the channel and Here on the left. I think that we just need to go again one by one and figure out What's still a thing and what's not because I think that some of the things are more or less Figured out already if someone if someone wants to bring something critical I guess Matt is one of the guys with the opinions here this topic Please please bring it forward now because we will try to cause as much as possible this week and branch Yeah, Matt Sorry No, is there is just a Some kind of strange behavior for about the healing process use and I have reported us and some bugs on Essentially as a monitoring reports. Yeah, in fact, I saw this kind of behavior because the monitoring doesn't Doesn't works doesn't work well, so I See they have been tagged this kind of bug by a head. So The fix is in progress, I think I Do try and roll through and tag things appropriately is the stuff we need to get fixed for version 0.1 And Things that are bugs and that kind of stuff which would be this one No, no, it's Okay, let me just take the number okay, so Yeah, my my At least feeling here is that for this first release we just need if you can just say, okay If you deploy this on a clean cluster run whatever workload you want to run and then if you want to run it again You have to clean up everything cannot rely on things getting up and down already plowing things and stuff I mean, it's the very first release. It's alpha. It's whatever Okay, you shouldn't you that you shouldn't have to tear down the NSM infrastructure every time Because then you can't have multiple workloads and multiple network service and points and things going successfully, right? so it has to at least be the case that you can leave the infrastructure running in the long term and deploy and redeploy various things on top of it and Still have stuff work. Well, we we all know that there are there are things like corner cases where if I Deploy something and then while deleting it. I deployed the other thing and there's this Intermediate state where things get wrong and you know all these kinds of strange things happening because To be frank in our CI we clean up the environment every time I mean after each test. So After the release is some testing that's a little bit less of the infrastructure every time because we should be able to keep the infrastructure up and Deploy these things and have stuff work and not be dangling things So that may be something to look at after the release in terms of the integration testing It may be something you may want to think about Andre as you I know you're thinking deep thoughts about integration testing going forward Because we do need to make sure we function properly The infrastructure staying continuously up and workloads coming and going But I mean with our first release I think it's more about proof of concept people that can deploy and see how this thing works in practice but I at least I don't expect that this should work in order You know getting up down things and moving around and etc. I mean we are I think we are not verifying this at least Yeah Okay Actually, I just to specify the issue I was watching it's a 1-1-2-3. I Saw it. I managed to find a scenario which leads to an SM manager reboot This is actually being worked on because Yeah, the the inconsistency you scribe here is is definitely a bug and definitely needs to be fixed Okay, so is that all on the stabilization or should we move on to the Andromeda release? Dr. Yeah I got distracted on something Don't know if from kiss on the call because this is just copied from the last time I don't know if it's still I think maybe we should just delete it if from kiss not here to discuss or maybe Prem Do you have any? No, I don't have updates on this. I Think I can check with them. I Think we started this topic to present about the first responder use case and Activities around it, but there is a such no progress beyond this discussion Okay, okay, we can jump straight into the rope app discussion then So, so there's something that I was I just wanted to to bring up I don't think that this is something that we should fix It's just more like let's talk a little bit like open and like in a common Call about the things that we envision next so of course I have put the first couple of items here So I can't start if If you let me so of course the release is the first thing which which we are actively working there Then there is this story of the example. So I Try to keep them in a separate rep or there has been discussions about Renaming things in the main rep or so I would at least from my point of view I would like to have the confirmation of the community that we would like to keep these things separate Maintain in a separate rep or taste it continuously at least the way that I'm doing now. So I don't know at Fred under at least from the I generally tend to be in favor of Moving the examples out of the main repo to a separate repo that said I do realize there are sometimes In that process I do want to make sure we do it with care But I would love a world where you know, we've got the imprint one repo and we've got the examples of another And and so, you know, when we're doing the ci, we're not having to rebuild the examples every time even though they haven't really changed um Okay, any other opinions here So the other thing that we have that we have discussed at kubecon With what's on it some of the other guys I think with taylor before it's about the cncf test based Enablement. This is something that this is pending for for a while and I am personally, um, I mean, I would like to get involved and we have spoke with What's on a lot about what are the things there and the plans um Yeah, so the the thing that we're waiting for at the moment was There was a written name of the guy from until I knew like michael Henderson or petersen or something similar that um Is working on getting a vpp networking with open stack doing its thing and We were having some connectivity issues between um between node-to-node communication Between open stack nodes. So once he had that working, um, then That's not nsm. I mean It's not it's not in the same itself, but part I believe part of what they wanted to do Well, there were two parts over the cncfci And then after that and there was a cncf test bed And so I think that the cncfci was the first thing that they wanted to tackle before they start to even Consider I think we have Watson here Craig and her wrong Watson, but I think that's completely your thought and all The guy who's working on the open stuff stuff robert starmer um is Off doing his thing there. And so I don't think that really relates in any direct way to us And I said working in the cncf test bed. Is that correct? Okay, sorry. I was on mute. Yeah, you're correct It's totally different robert stuff is totally different and if we were waiting for open stack But it would really hold us up. We'd like to have forever Yeah, we we would really like to have this the kubernetes side with the networking Uh network service mess going Yeah, and so I know that there there have been some desire expressed last week in conversations that we had To just have somebody sit down with you guys the Denver in particular And I think you also Watson maybe we're interested in actually doing the little bit of coding necessary for the nscs that you need and And more having a partner to help you through rather than having someone go do it for you. Did I did I get that correctly? Yeah, and then I also like to we were like nicole. I said talking with him about How the structure could be and he offered to to help so um, that would be Probably the best if he was also Uh working on that would be fantastic. Um, you know in my mind The first turn of the crank is actually pretty pretty damn simple, which is you just need to write a very simple network service endpoint Um, you know that you're going to use everywhere Which is just got um something that advertises a service And consumes the same service because the basic topology you guys have is a loop with your v-switch And use that nsc for everything including the v-switch And then for any auxiliary config that you need that's not currently being handled by network service mesh With the connection of the interfaces Just push that directly. Uh, so for example like the dpdk stuff to get you to and from Uh, the nick at this particular moment just push that directly Um, and that way you get a very simple first step on the whole thing Yeah That's probably slightly different than what I was thinking but Okay, I mean I will make sure to to to let the community know once once we were able to Sit together with Watson and figure out. Yeah. What were you thinking? Uh, I was actually thinking to take whatever we call the firewall now and actually enhance it to be completely config mc configurable to expose as much as possible from the vp agent capabilities like Routing the cross connect. So something that you can essentially configure through a config map So this is something that we call to it Watson something like the universal cnf Like you can you can do routing or you can actually I asked the guys there from the vp agent they were kind to add the acl base forwarding so you can do A lot of things they are based on that right This is fine. The reason I'm laughing is that we're building we're building a router. We're building a router and switch So, yeah, I mean that that's not also true I I had been thinking more from the direction of things something relatively unambitious that You know that remember those guys could do themselves Um, but but you if you're going to go actually help them I'll I'll leave it in your able hands because your your approach sounds fine as well um You know because I think at the end of the day however we get there from the point of view of code The fundamental thing we need right now because it's the functionality We're they're currently using is something where you know, basically the v-switch comes up requests a connection The first thing it hits you get plugged into the first then cnf as just a routable interface Because there are going to be some routes and so forth and we can ramp up and ramp down and Place and dice the steps we take to get between a and b But but fundamentally I think that's where they're starting Okay, so you're more or less aligned maybe the approach would be a little bit different, but yeah Both approaches are perfectly valid. I think more than anything. There's stations of our personalities So I I'm perfectly fine with what you were talking about there And uh I guess to to review also with what Dan was saying in the Uh user group the telco user group where he had uh or volunteered lucina for saying what all is deployed out of band Well the v-switch and a bunch of other things in the Um tests that are deployed out of band the more that we're using the network service mesh the more deployed in the cloud native way and we can We can talk about that in the And and everything so yeah, it'd be fantastic to get to the point where you say so what about networking? Never can get installed out of band. No networking is a network service that is installed in cloud native fashion Right, right Yep. Yep. Um, and the thing is I think we can progressively chip away at that. Um, you know, because for example things like the The s sorry of evf thing is probably a little be a little further out for network service mesh as a feature But we can you know, we can do we can do some out of band work And not even terribly much out of band work without until we get there and still use network service mesh for plumbing the connections between Yeah, something. Um, so is lucina going to come up with a a list of things that are not That or things that are currently out of band uh, yeah She's gonna well, they probably would just ask Taylor go down where you can come up with some things as well and um Put it together in the document Yeah, that that would be good because then we can take a look at what what we can Put in band and uh, it will also be good for two point others added for things that are not networking related as well So I think this is really good Uh, okay going further down the list. Um, we have the mesh integration deployment Components, I know that prem has Something to say there Yeah so As a project is essentially uh, meant to do a bit of benchmarking around service meshes um, so uh, what uh, a bunch of us are doing is trying to get network service mesh and uh, the idea here is How do we benchmark because in case of service mesh, they would essentially pump traffic via the uh, Ingress controller and then try to see how it performs What we're thinking was probably develop a network service mesh client and then take one example See enough, uh, and then uh, try to do a bit of benchmarking around it So one thing what I'm doing is I'm putting together a document. I wanted to validate with the measuring team just to understand Uh, the uh various components that can be leveraged and then once that is done I'll probably try to present it next week On what is the intent and then get community feedback to see how we can leverage the measuring platform Yeah, we should eventually get uh, lee calpote to give a short talk over here as well that is described He was here I don't know if he if it was him or someone else From their project, but we had Girish was there actually. Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah Girish actually, uh, frederick girish gave a presentation. I think a deep Sort of high level you can probably ask him to give Detail I can check with them Yeah, well, I think we we had someone who came and spoke about uh, we had someone to see when was it? It was late april About a month ago Um, so perhaps Uh, I was thinking more like in to work out like the details Like if If this is a path that we really want to go that we really want to go down then being able to get the the details on exactly what we're What are we like what do we need to provide them? What do they what do they want to to provide us and try to work out that integration? Yeah So, uh, I can probably work on the first cut And then present it here So we also have an intern working on just to see how we can get this done Perfect So the next thing that I have put here in the list is this service mesh interface, which was uh, the new The new service mesh hype that that Was announced at kubcon now at first glance it actually seems a little bit far from what we are doing But on the other side, um, if you remember this slide that I wanted to point out from the tvg kickoff Where actually we are part of a part of a landscape. So this is again in line with what I think that we should try to do Um, so I would like I mean and on our side, we are going to dedicate some resource actually in vana here She's going to work to try to figure out what this spec is about how this aligns with us not really aligned today Can we apply to change some things there? Uh, can we can we try to figure out some adapters and in general how this thing is going and again this is all about being part of the wider landscape and Try to to be I mean if these are specs that are going on uh Maybe maybe we could become part of these specs They have the traffic spec which uh, which specifies a type of traffic, etc, etc Maybe we can contribute something there being service mesh in the end again Yeah, so so the thing with them is they're very very, uh, htp specific. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah that's um When if you look at the axis control, it's about like, how do you it actually will list out htp endpoints and like How do you control those or you look at the qualities to be a route groups? If you look at like the traffic The specs and splits They're they're effectively the same. So I think So I think it's as semi as it is right now is it is Not very I'm not gonna say it's not interesting because it definitely is but it's It's something that plays at a level that's way higher than uh, then we play at however We I think we have a couple options. So one option would be To try to work out how to enable these type of things. So if someone says Something like they want to do a split or something We we could We could help with some of those with some of those splits if they If they want especially when you started looking at things like how do you do federated? a clustering you know because that Way if you're trying to access something and you want to say that this thing could be split across multiple clusters We we could provide help with that another thing as well as we could also contribute to the spec and Push things that are that are lower level into it. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. I completely agree with you Yeah Yeah, and I feel more comfortable with that particular path because I think trying to to shoehorn ourselves into the HGP spaces No I have a basic rule that applies here. It's the law of no unnatural acts Which is to say Um, I think it's a really good idea for us to engage But I think we with the nick line and frederick are saying which is let's not try and commit any unnatural acts By first forcing ourselves into the HGP part of the spec is probably death so Okay Then we have the kernel forwarding plane which already spoke and then I guess that this was it adding these things security dns You've got to go through security dns inner domain Andre had a really smart idea for resilience cv2 Which um, you guys have all heard of chaos monkey where you sort of randomly kill an element of the system With with Andre's idea for resilience cv2 We should be able to do chaos gorilla where we kill everything in the in the Where we basically update restart the entire service mesh all at once and everything still works um And then the other one we talked about at cube con was dynamic rewiring Particularly the packet capture example And then we also have the hardware nick slash sri ov stuff also that we will eventually need to do for the nfv use cases For the um for the chaos monkey. We should also introduce its uh Simian cousins such as like latency monkey or our others and do the system over time as we start to build Uh these type of features in Sounds good I got a draft that i've uh been putting together for the dns one So i'll i'll try to get that out as soon as possible So we can start doing some discussions on that And we we have an initial draft running loose for inner domain Probably needs a little bit more love, but it's out there. There's also an initial draft for the hardware nicks and sri ov stuff um You know resilience cv2 Um, I don't know andre if you've got anything you've written like a spec for that. Do you want to do that? Do we lose andre? Yeah, do you ask me? Yeah, what's your idea? Ah, okay for gorilla. Yeah Okay, uh, so uh, general idea is to have uh Init container to request initial nce pass connection to the monitoring container as a sidecar So we will be able to do full recover from this sidecar for services And the same could be achieved using quays dk uh with monitoring of an smd One question is for our security and the authority when we do restarting call the services except clients and except nce's But in general all looks very possible And very interesting Okay, so I think you've just politely said please finish the security spec so you can do the resiliency spec, which is totally So that that's a totally fair complaint. Um Yeah, and the among other things the inner domain spec probably should be updated to um To probably be updated to include floating domain. They're super cool Yeah, but Yeah, the the packet capture example by the way for dynamic rewiring. This was whether we actually got us the suggestion talking to people um The conference which is if we can do dynamic rewiring we can wire in something like a web shark packet capture box Um dynamically into the chain of a particular pod So let's say you've got a pod that's got some weird things going on. You can't tell what's happening You could dynamically wire a packet capture box say before the firewall pod um or whatever And using web shark you could do a packet capture specifically for that pod along that network service Um, which that should be like candy for developers Um, because now you can really get deep introspection to what's happening on the wire So this is a feature that is provided by uh, um by skydive by the way, but uh Uh, just When you mean dynamic rewiring, uh, you mean that uh Also, you you you should be able to uh on the fly uh move cross connect from one pod to another or Yeah, so if you picture this way if you have a pod that's got a connection between the the pod and the You know from the workload to a firewall to a vpn gateway The the idea we hand down every wiring would be to allow you to selectively for a particular pod Wire a packet capture box before the firewall and the vpn gateway so that you could actually capture and see what's going on Okay, but uh, okay, but it has nothing to do with uh The capabilities to uh, uh, if a pod is uh, is uh, to uh There are too many connections on the pod. Uh, try to to schedule To try to rewire some kind of cross connect to another pod dynamically Ah, so you mean basically load shedding so like if I'm I'm overwhelmed and I need to tell somebody hey This this is not working for me. I've got too many connections. Could you possible? That's another interesting one to throw into the mix to think about Um, I would throw that into the same general category as auto healing Um, which is to say with with auto healing. You're you're you're basically saying look, okay I no longer have the connection I need to the thing I'm talking to and so I got to go find something else to do Um, I think it you've described is not quite the same as auto healing But it's in the same flavor and that it's not something the user asked for it's a dynamic attribute of the system What I was thinking about with dynamic rewiring was the user makes a legitimately different policy choice about how they want the wiring to look Um, and that we go ahead and take existing workloads and rewire them in response to that So, yeah with um with that form of Of load shedding and so on there's there's a couple tools that we can pull from current application service smashes Especially you look at the net some of the stuff that netflix and uh spoke about things like short circuiting We we can make you so But anyways with that we're four minutes over the the agenda So I strongly recommend that we add these to the to the next week's agenda because they're definitely important topics Yeah, yeah Is there any last minute announcements or should we should we close it up? Let's close Yeah, I think we're good. Well, thank you everyone for your time and we will see you all again next week at the same time Yeah, bye. Bye. Tomorrow some of you Yeah, see you somebody tomorrow


I'm from Afghanistan, I'm studying in India. Oh, okay. We just had another call from an Afghan studying in India. He's studying a business administration degree. I am doing business administration too. Oh my goodness! So tell us your, Shabir, tell us your concerns about the environment. What worries you or does anything worry you about the environment? Yeah, it does. Actually, everybody has to be responsible. Let's say it's global warming, climate change, who has done it? We have done it, the industries. So those who have contributed a lot have to be more responsible. We have something called Kyoto Protocol, you know, that are members who are only signatories and there are members who don't ratify it. For instance, the United States, well, the United States, let's face it, okay, it's a developed country.  So they are only the signatory members, I think, as far as I'm concerned. And they don't, you know, they have to make it official and they have to have their own targets. Number one, number two is like, Canada, Canada declined, I mean, got out of the agreement with Kyoto in 2012, if I'm right, you know, they are contributing, but still they are not ready to sign and to contribute in reversing this process. So what they say, okay, in terms of economy, they think that it may be harmful for their economy if they cut, you know, certain industries, it may harm their economy. But in the long run, you know, if they have to be farsighted, in the long run, everybody will go. Well, yes. Sure. Well, what about a country, let's say like China, which argues that as a developing country, even though I believe that what now they're the leading producer of carbon fuels? Oh, coal, they're largest, most of their energy comes from coal, which is polluting. China, as you said, in terms of coal, it does. Well, I think, I hope that China be more responsible and act more responsible. All the governments in the world, be it China, be it the USA, be it the Canada, they have done it. Let's face it, nobody is going to penalize them. But it's still, for the sake of humanity, for the sake of human life, for the sake of this planet, let's call it Mother Earth. So everybody has to contribute in order to reverse the process. So we have, the governments do have to act responsible. That's what I say. Like for me as an individual, I can't do anything but hope for the best.