On 4/4/24 21:23, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 6:06 AM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
>
>> On 4/3/24 22:05, Vladislav Odintsov wrote:
>>> re-sending email because ovs list rejected previous its content for some
>> reason:
>>>
>>> Hi Ihar,
>>>
>>
>> Hi Vladislav, Ihar,
>>
>>> thanks for
On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 3:01 PM Vladislav Odintsov wrote:
> Hi Ihar,
>
> thanks for your quick reaction!
> I didn’t see mentioned thread, but think that it is not safe enough to
> have automatic detection of this scenario here.
> Imagine: for VXLAN with HW VTEP scenario besides VXLAN encap one
On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 6:06 AM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
> On 4/3/24 22:05, Vladislav Odintsov wrote:
> > re-sending email because ovs list rejected previous its content for some
> reason:
> >
> > Hi Ihar,
> >
>
> Hi Vladislav, Ihar,
>
> > thanks for your quick reaction!
> > I didn’t see mentioned
I’ve sent v2:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ovn/patch/20240404160628.970615-1-odiv...@gmail.com/
> On 4 Apr 2024, at 18:27, Dumitru Ceara wrote:
>
> On 4/4/24 14:38, Vladislav Odintsov wrote:
>> *Patch [1] is
>>
On 4/4/24 14:38, Vladislav Odintsov wrote:
> *Patch [1] is
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ovn/patch/20240401121510.758326-1-odiv...@gmail.com/
>
>> On 4 Apr 2024, at 15:33, Vladislav Odintsov wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dumitru,
>>
>> thanks for your attention on this!
>>
>>> On 4 Apr 2024, at
*Patch [1] is
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ovn/patch/20240401121510.758326-1-odiv...@gmail.com/
> On 4 Apr 2024, at 15:33, Vladislav Odintsov wrote:
>
> Hi Dumitru,
>
> thanks for your attention on this!
>
>> On 4 Apr 2024, at 13:06, Dumitru Ceara wrote:
>>
>> On 4/3/24 22:05,
Hi Dumitru,
thanks for your attention on this!
> On 4 Apr 2024, at 13:06, Dumitru Ceara wrote:
>
> On 4/3/24 22:05, Vladislav Odintsov wrote:
>> re-sending email because ovs list rejected previous its content for some
>> reason:
>>
>> Hi Ihar,
>>
>
> Hi Vladislav, Ihar,
>
>> thanks for
On 4/3/24 22:05, Vladislav Odintsov wrote:
> re-sending email because ovs list rejected previous its content for some
> reason:
>
> Hi Ihar,
>
Hi Vladislav, Ihar,
> thanks for your quick reaction!
> I didn’t see mentioned thread, but I think that it is not safe enough to have
> automatic
re-sending email because ovs list rejected previous its content for some reason:
Hi Ihar,
thanks for your quick reaction!
I didn’t see mentioned thread, but I think that it is not safe enough to have
automatic detection of this scenario here.
Imagine: for VXLAN with HW VTEP scenario besides
Thank you Vladislav.
FYI it was reported in the past in
https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-discuss/2022-July/051931.html
but fell through cracks then. Thanks for picking it up!
In your patch, you introduce a new config option to disable the
'vxlan-mode' behavior. This will definitely
The failed new testcase assumes that patch [1] is applied.
Should I resend them both as a single patchset?
1:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ovn/patch/20240401121510.758326-1-odiv...@gmail.com/
> On 3 Apr 2024, at 13:34, Vladislav Odintsov wrote:
>
> Commit [1] introduced a "vxlan mode"
Commit [1] introduced a "vxlan mode" concept. It brought a limitation
for available tunnel IDs because of lack of space in VXLAN VNI.
In vxlan mode OVN is limited by 4095 datapaths (LRs or non-transit LSs)
and 2047 logical switch ports per datapath.
Prior to this patch vxlan mode was enabled
Commit [1] introduced a "vxlan mode" concept. It brought a limitation
for available tunnel IDs because of lack of space in VXLAN VNI.
In vxlan mode OVN is limited by 4095 datapaths (LRs or non-transit LSs)
and 2047 logical switch ports per datapath.
Prior to this patch vxlan mode was enabled
13 matches
Mail list logo
