On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 5:12 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo <majop...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Russell Bryant <russ...@ovn.org> wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo >> <majop...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > I wanted to share a small status update: >> > >> > Anil and I have been working on this [1] and we expect to post >> > some preliminary patches before the end of the week. >> > >> > I can confirm that the BFD + bundle(active_backup) strategy >> > works well from the hypervisors point of view. With 1 sec BFD >> > pings we get a ~2.8s failover time. >> > >> > So far we have only focused on case "2" so far for the distributed >> > routers where we specify a set of hosts to act as chassis. >> > >> > """ >> > ovn-nbctl lrp-add R1 alice 00:00:02:01:02:03 172.16.1.1/24 \ >> > -- set Logical_Router_Port alice \ >> > options:redirect-chassis=gw1:10,gw2:20,gw3:30 >> > """ >> > >> >> Thanks for the update! Sounds like great progress. >> >> > We wonder if there's any value at all in exploring support on "1" >> > the old way of pinning a logical router to a chassis. >> >> You mean only specifying a single chassis here? Does it add a lot of >> complexity to only support a single gateway? > > > I don't know yet, I need to look at that specific case. > >> >> If not, it definitely >> seems worth keeping. Supporting simpler setups is a good thing. > > > Ignorant question, setting the chassis option on the Logical Router, > doesn't make the router "less distributed", i.e. making the E/W traffic flow > through the specific chassis?. This is basically why I didn't pay attention > to it, but if it's not the case, of course, it's worth working on it.
Setting the chassis only centralizes NAT processing, not east/west routing without NAT. -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev