...@openvswitch.org
Subject: Re: [ovs-discuss] [ovs-dev] Geneve remote_ip as flow for OVN hosts
This was definitely a bit quicker than I usually prefer for changes that
might have nonobvious side effects, but we are also very close to the
beginning of a release cycle, so I decided to be an optimist for once.
You
gt; From: Ben Pfaff
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 1:47 PM
> To: Venugopal Iyer
> Cc: Guru Shetty; Leonid Grossman; d...@openvswitch.org
> Subject: Re: [ovs-discuss] [ovs-dev] Geneve remote_ip as flow for OVN hosts
>
> I applied this series to master. Thank you!
>
&g
: [ovs-discuss] [ovs-dev] Geneve remote_ip as flow for OVN hosts
I applied this series to master. Thank you!
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 03:52:48PM +, Venugopal Iyer wrote:
> HI, Ben:
>
>
> From: Ben Pfaff
> Sent: Monday, February 1
y; Leonid Grossman; d...@openvswitch.org
> Subject: Re: [ovs-discuss] [ovs-dev] Geneve remote_ip as flow for OVN hosts
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 08:09:59PM +, Venugopal Iyer wrote:
> > Of course we want users to upgrade the entire system. We just need to
> > make sure that it
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 08:09:59PM +, Venugopal Iyer wrote:
> Of course we want users to upgrade the entire system. We just need to
> make sure that it's possible to upgrade one piece at a time in an order
> that ensures that the system isn't broken by a partial upgrade. The
> specified
From: Ben Pfaff
Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 6:53 PM
To: Venugopal Iyer
Cc: Guru Shetty; Leonid Grossman; d...@openvswitch.org
Subject: Re: [ovs-discuss] [ovs-dev] Geneve remote_ip as flow for OVN hosts
On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 08:10:48PM +
On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 08:10:48PM +, Venugopal Iyer wrote:
> > Also, as I mentioned the changes will mean that the ovn-controller will
> > need the ovn-central
> > to be updated to the changed version as well (i.e. if someone just installs
> > ovs and ovn-host
> > s/he can't expect it to
: Guru Shetty; Leonid Grossman; d...@openvswitch.org
Subject: Re: [ovs-discuss] [ovs-dev] Geneve remote_ip as flow for OVN hosts
It looks like we fell off ovs-dev somehow. I've added it back.
On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 05:50:39PM +, Venugopal Iyer wrote:
> Thanks, Ben!
>
>
>
> thanks for your time and help!
>
> -venu
>
> ________________________
> From: Ben Pfaff
> Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 12:55 PM
> To: Venugopal Iyer
> Cc: Guru Shetty; Leonid Grossman
> Subject: Re: [ovs-discuss] [ovs-dev] Geneve remote_i
On Behalf Of Ben Pfaff
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 12:51 PM
> To: venugopal iyer
> Cc: ovs dev ; Guru Shetty ; Girish
> Moodalbail ; disc...@openvswitch.org
> Subject: Re: [ovs-discuss] [ovs-dev] Geneve remote_ip as flow for OVN
> hosts
>
> If I'm not mistaken, we
Hi, Ben:
Agreed; mid/late next week should work for a meeting, will check with you about
availability/logistics.
thanks!
-venu
On Wednesday, December 12, 2018, 12:50:41 PM PST, Ben Pfaff
wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, we briefly discussed this at ovscon. It seems to
me that this
If I'm not mistaken, we briefly discussed this at ovscon. It seems to
me that this is a fairly complicated issue and proposal, and it might
benefit from in-person discussion. I seem to recall that you are local
to the Bay Area, and, if so, do you think we could take some time,
perhaps next week,
Sorry for the resend, I am not sure how the pictures will render in the text
doc, so am attaching the PDF too.
thanks,
-venu
On Thursday, November 29, 2018, 9:26:54 AM PST, venugopal iyer
wrote:
Thanks, Ben.
Sorry for the delay. Please find attached a draft design proposal and let
Thanks, Ben.
Sorry for the delay. Please find attached a draft design proposal and let me
know your comments etc. I did some quick
prototyping to check for feasibility too; I can share that, if it helps.
Note, the document is a draft and, I admit, there might be things that I
haven't
Honestly the best thing to do is probably to propose a design or, if
it's simple enough, to send a patch. That will probably be more
effective at sparking a discussion.
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 03:33:48PM +, venugopal iyer wrote:
> Hi:
> Just wanted to check if folks had any thoughts on the
Hi:
Just wanted to check if folks had any thoughts on the use case Girish outlined
below. We do have
a real use case for this and are interested in looking at options for
supporting more than one VTEP IP.It is currently a limitation for us, wanted to
know if there are similar use cases folks
Would it be possible for the association to be made
when the logical port is instantiated on a node? and relayed on to the SB by
the controller, e.g. assuming a mechanism to specify/determine a physical port
mapping for a
logical port for a VM. The mappings can be specified
as
configuration
How would OVN know which IP to use for a given logical port on a
chassis?
I think that the "multiple tunnel encapsulations" is meant to cover,
say, Geneve vs. STT vs. VXLAN, not the case you have in mind.
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 09:50:32AM -0700, Girish Moodalbail wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I
18 matches
Mail list logo
