Sorry for the resend, I am not sure how the pictures will render in the text doc, so am attaching the PDF too. thanks, -venu
On Thursday, November 29, 2018, 9:26:54 AM PST, venugopal iyer <iye...@ymail.com> wrote: Thanks, Ben. Sorry for the delay. Please find attached a draft design proposal and let me know your comments etc. I did some quick prototyping to check for feasibility too; I can share that, if it helps. Note, the document is a draft and, I admit, there might be things that I haven't thought about/through, or missed. I am attaching a text doc, assuming it might be easier, but if you'd like it in a different format, please let me know. thanks! -venu On Wednesday, October 31, 2018, 10:30:23 AM PDT, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote: Honestly the best thing to do is probably to propose a design or, if it's simple enough, to send a patch. That will probably be more effective at sparking a discussion. On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 03:33:48PM +0000, venugopal iyer wrote: > Hi: > Just wanted to check if folks had any thoughts on the use case Girish > outlined below. We do have > a real use case for this and are interested in looking at options for > supporting more than one VTEP IP.It is currently a limitation for us, wanted > to know if there are similar use cases folks are looking at/interested in > addressing. > > thanks, > -venu > > On Thursday, September 6, 2018, 9:19:01 AM PDT, venugopal iyer via dev ><ovs-dev@openvswitch.org> wrote: > > Would it be possible for the association <logical port|dst MAC, VTEP> to be >made > when the logical port is instantiated on a node? and relayed on to the SB by > the controller, e.g. assuming a mechanism to specify/determine a physical > port mapping for a > logical port for a VM. The <physical port,encap-ip> mappings can be > specified as > configuration on the chassis. In the absence of physical port information for > a logical port/VM, I suppose we could default to an encap-ip. > > > just a thought, > -venu > On Wednesday, September 5, 2018, 2:03:35 PM PDT, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> > wrote: > > How would OVN know which IP to use for a given logical port on a > chassis? > > I think that the "multiple tunnel encapsulations" is meant to cover, > say, Geneve vs. STT vs. VXLAN, not the case you have in mind. > > On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 09:50:32AM -0700, Girish Moodalbail wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > I would like to add more context here. In the diagram below > > > > +----------------------------------+ > > |ovn-host | > > | | > > | | > > | +-------------------------+| > > | | br-int || > > | +----+-------------+------+| > > | | | | > > | +--v-----+ +---v----+ | > > | | geneve | | geneve | | > > | +--+-----+ +---+----+ | > > | | | | > > | +-v----+ +--v---+ | > > | | IP0 | | IP1 | | > > | +------+ +------+ | > > +----------+ eth0 +-----+ eth1 +---+ > > +------+ +------+ > > > > eth0 and eth are, say, in its own physical segments. The VMs that are > > instantiated in the above ovn-host will have multiple interfaces and each > > of those interface need to be on a different Geneve VTEP. > > > > I think the following entry in OVN TODOs ( > > https://github.com/openvswitch/ovs/blob/master/ovn/TODO.rst) > > > > ---------------8<------------------8<--------------- > > Support multiple tunnel encapsulations in Chassis. > > > > So far, both ovn-controller and ovn-controller-vtep only allow chassis to > > have one tunnel encapsulation entry. We should extend the implementation to > > support multiple tunnel encapsulations > > ---------------8<------------------8<--------------- > > > > captures the above requirement. Is that the case? > > > > Thanks again. > > > > Regards, > > ~Girish > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 3:00 PM Girish Moodalbail <gmoodalb...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > Is it possible to configure remote_ip as a 'flow' instead of an IP address > > > (i.e., setting ovn-encap-ip to a single IP address)? > > > > > > Today, we have one VTEP endpoint per OVN host and all the VMs that > > > connects to br-int on that OVN host are reachable behind this VTEP > > > endpoint. Is it possible to have multiple VTEP endpoints for a br-int > > > bridge and use Open Flow flows to select one of the VTEP endpoint? > > > > > > > > > +----------------------------------+ > > > |ovn-host | > > > | | > > > | | > > > | +-------------------------+| > > > | | br-int || > > > | +----+-------------+------+| > > > | | | | > > > | +--v-----+ +---v----+ | > > > | | geneve | | geneve | | > > > | +--+-----+ +---+----+ | > > > | | | | > > > | +-v----+ +--v---+ | > > > | | IP0 | | IP1 | | > > > | +------+ +------+ | > > > +----------+ eth0 +-----+ eth1 +---+ > > > +------+ +------+ > > > > > > Also, we don't want to bond eth0 and eth1 into a bond interface and then > > > use bond's IP as VTEP endpoint. > > > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > ~Girish > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > discuss mailing list > > disc...@openvswitch.org > > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > d...@openvswitch.org > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev > > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > d...@openvswitch.org > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev >too, I can share that if it helps.
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev