Hi,

Could you elaborate on that? Is there some documentation on this interaction I 
could read? Is this a potential performance issue, or offloading issue? What 
would be a better way to configure bonding with ovs that does not bring down 
network in case of vswitchd failure?

Best Regards,
Krzysztof

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021, at 01:49, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Linux bonds and OVS bridges don't necessarily mix well.
> 
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 10:25:58AM +0200, Krzysztof Klimonda wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I had a configuration like that in mind:
> > 
> > # ip link add bond0 type bond
> > # ip link set em1 master bond0
> > # ip link set em2 master bond0
> > # ip link add link bond0 name mgmt type vlan id 100
> > # ip link add link bond0 name ovs_tunnel type vlan id 200
> > 
> > # ovs-vsctl add-br br0
> > # ovs-vsctl add-port bond0
> > 
> > # ip link |grep bond0
> > 6: bond0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,MASTER,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 9000 qdisc noqueue 
> > master ovs-system state UP mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1000
> > 7: mgmt@bond0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 9000 qdisc noqueue 
> > state UP mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1000
> > #
> > 
> > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021, at 18:51, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 09:58:49PM +0200, Krzysztof Klimonda wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > I have tried the following configuration for the system-level network 
> > > > in the lab:
> > > > 
> > > >                                            
> > > >                               +--vlan10@bond0
> > > > ens1--+                      |              
> > > >        ---bond0 (ovs-system)--+--vlan20@bond0
> > > > ens2--+                      |              
> > > >                               +--vlan30@bond0
> > > > 
> > > > The idea is to plug bond0 into openvswitch so that I can add specific 
> > > > VLANs to my virtual topology, but push some of those VLANs into system 
> > > > without doing any specific configuration on the ovs side (for example, 
> > > > to have access to the management interface even if vswitchd is down).
> > > > 
> > > > This seems to be working fine in my lab (there is access to the 
> > > > management interface - vlan10 - even when bond0 has ovs-system as 
> > > > master), but are there any drawbacks to such a configuration?
> > > 
> > > It's hard to guess how you're implementing this.  If you're doing it
> > > with something like this:
> > > 
> > >     ovs-vsctl add-port br0 ens1
> > >     ovs-vsctl add-port br0 ens2
> > >     ovs-vsctl add-bond br0 bond0 ens1 ens2
> > >     ovs-vsctl add-port br0 vlan1 tag=1 -- set interface vlan1 
> > > type=internal
> > >     ovs-vsctl add-port br0 vlan2 tag=2 -- set interface vlan2 
> > > type=internal
> > >     ovs-vsctl add-port br0 vlan3 tag=3 -- set interface vlan3 
> > > type=internal
> > > 
> > > then it ought to work fine.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> >   Krzysztof Klimonda
> >   kklimo...@syntaxhighlighted.com
> 


-- 
  Krzysztof Klimonda
  kklimo...@syntaxhighlighted.com
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
disc...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss

Reply via email to