Check my other email. Having a physical interface directly in the
integration bridge will not work as expected.
On Jun 28, 2016 5:45 PM, "Turbo Fredriksson" <tu...@bayour.com> wrote:
> On Jun 29, 2016, at 12:03 AM, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
>
> > Bridge br-tun
> > fail_mode: secure
> > Port patch-int
> > Interface patch-int
> > type: patch
> > options: {peer=patch-tun}
>
> Looking at my own setup in more detail, I just noticed
> this.
>
> "patch-int"? Shouldn't that be "patch-provider"??
>
> > Bridge br-provider
> > fail_mode: secure
> > Port "qvo6a866c7f-2b"
> > tag: 1
> > Interface "qvo6a866c7f-2b"
> > Port patch-tun
> > Interface patch-tun
> > type: patch
> > options: {peer=patch-int}
>
> .. because of this "patch-tun" in "br-provider"?
>
> > Port int-br-provider
> > Interface int-br-provider
> > type: patch
> > options: {peer=phy-br-provider}
>
> And again, the word "int" (but that might be ok).
> What is this port for?
> --
> Life sucks and then you die
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list:
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
> Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org
> Unsubscribe :
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
>
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org
Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
