On 04/29/2015 12:22 PM, Justin Pettit wrote: > >> On Apr 29, 2015, at 6:34 AM, Russell Bryant <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I wonder how realistic it would be to have 65k ports and hit this as a >> limit. If your deployment has many containers in each VM, it seems like >> we could hit that much more quickly than traditionally seen before. > > I had the same thought around containers. I think we need to assume > we'll hit 65k ports in the whole system pretty quickly. > >> If a protocol can fit a whole UUID in tunneled packets, I suppose we >> could optionally switch to using the logical port UUID later? > > The whole UUID seems like a lot of overhead. I'll start a new thread > to discuss how we want to handle end-point identification. If we did > a schema like use a 24-bit logical network id and a 16-bit logical > port number that should scale fine. Even if we do a good job with > broadcast suppression, 65k ports in a subnet is still probably > pushing practical limits. > > I'll get that new thread started.
OK, great. I missed your comments about this before posting my response. Sorry about that. -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
