Please don't drop the list. On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 11:24:36AM -0400, Aaron Conole wrote: > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 07:59:48AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > > I think that the various issues with trying to treat a provider network > > as a logical network are going to difficult to resolve. I think that > > they reflect a conceptual difference between OVN logical networks and > > provider networks. OVN knows the hosts on a logical network and where > > they reside, but it doesn't know that for a provider network, and can't > > do anything related to specific hosts except in the pathological case > > where they reside on the same hypervisor. Broadcast may be a problem, > > but so is a simple output to any port: it's impossible unless the source > > and destination ports are on the same hypervisor. So my thought is that > > modeling a provider network as an OVN logical network is unlikely to be > > fruitful (unless we change the OVN logical network model significantly). > > > > Here's an a strawman alternative. Instead of representing a provider > > network as a single logical network, represent it as a collection of > > logical networks, one for each connected port. Each of these logical > > networks has only two ports, the VM's port plus a physical port on the > > hypervisor where the VM resides (or more likely a patch port to the > > bridge that contains the physical port; the other end of the patch port > > can be an access port if it's a VLAN provider network). It seems to me > > that this models the situation more naturally. > > > > Thoughts? > > If I'm reading this correctly, it sounds as though OVS treats physical ports > as a single L2 segment; contrasted with a real switch where each port would be > it's own L2 segment (and as a consequence, it's own logical L2 network). Is my > analogy correct?
I don't understand the question. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev