On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 11:07:36AM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > This patch does pave the way towards dropping traffic which comes in > on the wrong slave. In order to make something like that workable we > would need to update the partner switch whenever load balancing > happens. There is a small risk of black-hole-ing traffic in some > situations. However, I think that can be mitigated by only dropping > traffic which we know about in our learning table, or sending > gratuitous arps to update the network in those situations.
Based on the discussion, I don't object to sending a gratuitous ARP when we rebalance. But naively dropping traffic that comes in on the wrong slave when rebalancing is going to cause trouble, because it will cause some packets to get dropped during the transition. I think that we would need a "grace period" of a second or two during which we accept traffic on the old and new link, or some other heuristic to figure out when the next-hop switch has switched links. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
