If there is no or minimal overhead of adding an LR or restricting the routing to LR, then perhaps keeping that logical separation makes sense. I think the design we evaluate or look at has to focus very tightly on performance as any non-trivial forwarding performance impact will affect the adoption of the solution.
Regards Gurpreet > On Jun 28, 2024, at 11:56 AM, Ilya Maximets <i.maxim...@ovn.org> wrote: > > 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
