Le 27 nov. 2018 à 01:46, David Ahern a écrit :
> On 11/26/18 5:41 PM, Alexis Bauvin wrote:
>> Le 26 nov. 2018 à 18:54, David Ahern a écrit :
>>> On 11/26/18 9:32 AM, Alexis Bauvin wrote:
Thanks for the review. I’ll send a v5 if you have no other comment on
this version!
>>>
>>> A few
On 11/26/18 5:41 PM, Alexis Bauvin wrote:
> Le 26 nov. 2018 à 18:54, David Ahern a écrit :
>> On 11/26/18 9:32 AM, Alexis Bauvin wrote:
>>> Thanks for the review. I’ll send a v5 if you have no other comment on
>>> this version!
>>
>> A few comments on the test script; see attached which has the
Le 26 nov. 2018 à 18:54, David Ahern a écrit :
> On 11/26/18 9:32 AM, Alexis Bauvin wrote:
>> Thanks for the review. I’ll send a v5 if you have no other comment on
>> this version!
>
> A few comments on the test script; see attached which has the changes.
>
> Mainly the cleanup does not need to
On 11/26/18 12:06 PM, Alexis Bauvin wrote:
> Moreover, the issue of mixing default and non-default vrf needs to be
> addressed. For now it is stale, as I don’t see any solution (except for
> rewriting the whole thing as you suggested before) to address the
> "Address already in use" made by a
Le 26 nov. 2018 à 19:26, Roopa Prabhu a écrit :
>
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 9:54 AM David Ahern wrote:
>>
>> On 11/26/18 9:32 AM, Alexis Bauvin wrote:
>>> Thanks for the review. I’ll send a v5 if you have no other comment on
>>> this version!
>>
>> A few comments on the test script; see
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 9:54 AM David Ahern wrote:
>
> On 11/26/18 9:32 AM, Alexis Bauvin wrote:
> > Thanks for the review. I’ll send a v5 if you have no other comment on
> > this version!
>
> A few comments on the test script; see attached which has the changes.
>
> Mainly the cleanup does not
On 11/26/18 9:32 AM, Alexis Bauvin wrote:
> Thanks for the review. I’ll send a v5 if you have no other comment on
> this version!
A few comments on the test script; see attached which has the changes.
Mainly the cleanup does not need to be called at the end since you setup
the exit trap. The
Le 22 nov. 2018 à 18:19, David Ahern a écrit :
> On 11/21/18 6:07 PM, Alexis Bauvin wrote:
>> Creating a VXLAN device with is underlay in the non-default VRF makes
>> egress route lookup fail or incorrect since it will resolve in the
>> default VRF, and ingress fail because the socket listens in
On 11/21/18 6:07 PM, Alexis Bauvin wrote:
> Creating a VXLAN device with is underlay in the non-default VRF makes
> egress route lookup fail or incorrect since it will resolve in the
> default VRF, and ingress fail because the socket listens in the default
> VRF.
>
> This patch binds the
Creating a VXLAN device with is underlay in the non-default VRF makes
egress route lookup fail or incorrect since it will resolve in the
default VRF, and ingress fail because the socket listens in the default
VRF.
This patch binds the underlying UDP tunnel socket to the l3mdev of the
lower device
10 matches
Mail list logo
