On 06/23/2015 05:10 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 04:54:20PM -0400, Russell Bryant wrote: >> On 06/23/2015 04:17 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 02:34:07PM -0400, Russell Bryant wrote: >>>> On 06/15/2015 08:00 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 03:13:54PM -0400, Russell Bryant wrote: >>>>>> Provider Networks >>>>>> ================= >>>>>> >>>>>> OpenStack Neutron currently has a feature referred to as "provider >>>>>> networks". This is used as a way to define existing physical networks >>>>>> that you would like to integrate into your environment. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the simplest case, it can be used in environments where they have no >>>>>> interest in tenant networks. Instead, they want all VMs hooked up >>>>>> directly to a pre-defined network in their environment. This use case >>>>>> is actually popular for private OpenStack deployments. > > [...] > >>> I had to read this several times, but maybe I understand it now. Let me >>> recap for verification. >>> >>> A "tenant network" is what OVN calls a logical network. OVN can >>> construct it as an L2-over-L3 overlay with STT or Geneve or whatever. >>> Tenant networks can be connected to physical networks via OVN gateways. >>> >>> A "provider network" is just a physical L2 network (possibly >>> VLAN-tagged). In such a network, on the sending side, OVN would rely on >>> normal L2 switching for packets to reach their destinations, and on the >>> receiving side, OVN would not have a reliable way to determine the >>> source of a packet (it would have to infer it from the source MAC). Is >>> that accurate? >> >> Yes, all of that matches my understanding of things. >> >> I worry that not being able to explain it well might mean I don't have >> it all right, so I hope some other Neutron devs chime in to confirm, as >> well. > > OK, let's go on then. > > Some more recap, on the reason why this would need to be in OVN. If I'm > following, that's because users are likely to want to have VMs that > connect both to provider networks and to tenant networks on the same > hypervisor, and that means that they need Neutron plugins for each of > those, and there's naturally a reluctance to install the bits for two > different plugins on every hypervisor. Is that correct? If it is, then > I'll go back and reread the ideas we had elsewhere in this thread; I'm > better equipped to understand them now.
That is correct, yes. -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
