On 6/28/24 17:38, Dumitru Ceara wrote: > On 6/28/24 15:05, Ilya Maximets wrote: >> On 6/28/24 11:03, Ales Musil wrote: >>> Hi Frode, >>> >>> looking forward to the RFC. AFAIU it means that the routes would be exposed >>> on >>> LR, more specifically GW router. Would it make sense to allow this behavior >>> for >>> provider networks (LS with localnet port)? In that case we could advertise >>> chassis-local information from logical routers attached to BGP-enabled >>> switches. E.g.: FIPs, LBs. It would cover the use case for distributed >>> routers. To achieve that we should have BGP peers for each chassis that the >>> LS >>> is local on. >> >> I haven't read the whole thing yet, but can we, please, stop adding routing >> features >> to switches? :) If someone wants routing, they should use a router, IMO. >> > > I'm fairly certain that there are precedents in "classic" network > appliances: switches that can do a certain amount of routing (even run BGP). > > In this case we could add a logical router but I'm not sure that > simplifies things. >
"classic" network appliances are a subject for restrictions of a physical material world. It's just way easier and cheaper to acquire and install a single physical box instead of N. This is not a problem for a virtual network. AP+router+switch+modem combo boxes are also "classic" last mile network appliances that we just call a "router". It doesn't mean we should implement one. The distinction between OVN logical routers and switches is there for a reason. That is so you can look at the logical topology and understand how it works more or less without diving into configuration of every single part of it. If switches do routing and routers do switching, what's the point of differentiation? It only brings more confusion. Best regards, Ilya Maximets. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
