On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 11:18:19AM +0200, Luke Gorrie wrote: > On 2 July 2013 06:45, Justin Pettit <jpet...@nicira.com> wrote: > > The only supported methods are miimon, carrier, and LACPDUs (for LACP > > bonds, obviously). > > Just curious. Do you guys consider it good practice for users like Piotr to > implement new bonding methods within a controller application? Is this > higher-level functionality considered interesting/in-scope/on-topic in the > context of Open vSwitch, or do you prefer that kind of discussion be taken > up in the context of a specific controller e.g. on the Floodlight mailing > list? > > Curious because higher-level features like ARP/ICMP/BFD monitoring and > failover functionality seem to me like a great application area for the > OpenFlow model. That's something that's already a pain to deal with in a > multi-vendor context e.g. between a Cisco and a Juniper and seems like it > could be neatly handled by a controller injecting and catching health check > packets in strategic places.
It's fine to implement whatever bonding mode you like with a controller. If that fits your application, then that's awesome, and I'm glad to hear it. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
