>
>
> What if we only added a list of ports that are required to complete
> DHCP? That would ordinarily be only one port (which might be a bond),
> and it wouldn't be needed at all if DHCP was not in use.
>
It sounds better than adding all the ports belonging to a bridge.
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 04:54:56PM +0400, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 09:30:15AM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > Should we skip the "post" call for OVSIntPort? We know that these
> > ports are not physical ports, so they will not allow DHCP to complete.
> I believe DHCP is allow
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 09:30:15AM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Should we skip the "post" call for OVSIntPort? We know that these
> ports are not physical ports, so they will not allow DHCP to complete.
I believe DHCP is allowed on these ports, but you are right - no
need to delay bridge configuratio
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 08:29:29AM -0800, Gurucharan Shetty wrote:
> The current network-script, ifup-ovs does not work well if you
> enable DHCP on the OVS. It will work if we name the bridge
> alphabetically greater than the underlying physical interfaces.
> Even then, it will do multiple DHCP a
The current network-script, ifup-ovs does not work well if you
enable DHCP on the OVS. It will work if we name the bridge
alphabetically greater than the underlying physical interfaces.
Even then, it will do multiple DHCP attempts slowing down the boot
up process.
This patch is my attempt to allo
