On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Guru Shetty wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >> With respect to the other questions, I think its best approach would
>> be to
>> >> ask direct questions so those
>> >> direct questions get answered.
>> >>
>> >> 1) With 1000 HVs, 1000 HVs/tenant, 1 distributed router per tenant,
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Gurucharan Shetty wrote:
> Currently we can connect routers via "peer"ing. This limits
> the number of routers that can be connected with each other
> directly to 2.
>
> One of the design goals for L3 Gateway is to be able to
> have multiple gateways (each with th
>
>
> >>
> >> With respect to the other questions, I think its best approach would be
> to
> >> ask direct questions so those
> >> direct questions get answered.
> >>
> >> 1) With 1000 HVs, 1000 HVs/tenant, 1 distributed router per tenant, you
> >> choose the number of gateways/tenant:
> >>
> >> a)
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Guru Shetty wrote:
>
>
> On 12 May 2016 at 16:34, Darrell Ball wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Guru Shetty wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> I think you misunderstood - having one or more gateway per tenant does
>> >> not make Transit LS better in flow scale.
>
On 12 May 2016 at 16:34, Darrell Ball wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Guru Shetty wrote:
>
> >
> >> I think you misunderstood - having one or more gateway per tenant does
> >> not make Transit LS better in flow scale.
> >> The size of a Transit LS subnet and management across Transit
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Guru Shetty wrote:
>
>> I think you misunderstood - having one or more gateway per tenant does
>> not make Transit LS better in flow scale.
>> The size of a Transit LS subnet and management across Transit LSs is one
>> the 5 issues I mentioned and it remains the
>
>
> I think you misunderstood - having one or more gateway per tenant does not
> make Transit LS better in flow scale.
> The size of a Transit LS subnet and management across Transit LSs is one
> the 5 issues I mentioned and it remains the same
> as do the other issues.
>
> Based on the example w
>
>
>>
>> I think one of the main discussion points was needing thousands of arp
>> flows and thousands of subnets, and it was on an incorrect logical
>> topology, I am glad that it is not an issue any more.
>>
>
> I think you misunderstood - having one or more gateway per tenant does not
> make Tr
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Guru Shetty wrote:
>
>
>
> On May 11, 2016, at 10:45 PM, Darrell Ball wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Guru Shetty wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 11, 2016, at 8:45 PM, Darrell Ball wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Guru Shetty
> On May 11, 2016, at 10:45 PM, Darrell Ball wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Guru Shetty wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 11, 2016, at 8:45 PM, Darrell Ball wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Guru Shetty wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Some reasons why
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Guru Shetty wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > On May 11, 2016, at 8:45 PM, Darrell Ball wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Guru Shetty wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Some reasons why having a “transit LS” is “undesirable” is:
> >>>
> >>> 1)1) It creates additi
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Guru Shetty wrote:
>
>>
>> Some reasons why having a “transit LS” is “undesirable” is:
>>
>> 1)1) It creates additional requirements at the CMS layer for setting
>> up networks; i.e. additional programming is required at the OVN northbound
>> interface for th
>
>
>
> Some reasons why having a “transit LS” is “undesirable” is:
>
> 1)1) It creates additional requirements at the CMS layer for setting
> up networks; i.e. additional programming is required at the OVN northbound
> interface for the special transit LSs, interactions with the logical route
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Guru Shetty wrote:
>
>
> On 9 May 2016 at 14:51, Darrell Ball wrote:
>
>> I have some initial clarifications first before review
>>
>> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Gurucharan Shetty wrote:
>>
>>> Currently we can connect routers via "peer"ing. This limits
>>>
On 9 May 2016 at 14:51, Darrell Ball wrote:
> I have some initial clarifications first before review
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Gurucharan Shetty wrote:
>
>> Currently we can connect routers via "peer"ing. This limits
>> the number of routers that can be connected with each other
>> dir
I have some initial clarifications first before review
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Gurucharan Shetty wrote:
> Currently we can connect routers via "peer"ing. This limits
> the number of routers that can be connected with each other
> directly to 2.
>
This sounds like you are saying that ca
Currently we can connect routers via "peer"ing. This limits
the number of routers that can be connected with each other
directly to 2.
One of the design goals for L3 Gateway is to be able to
have multiple gateways (each with their own router)
connected to a distributed router via a switch.
With t
17 matches
Mail list logo
