On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 11:34:39AM -0700, Ansis Atteka wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:45:47PM -0700, Ansis Atteka wrote: > > > > ovs-l3ping is similar to ovs-test, but the main difference > > > > is that it does not require administrator to open firewall > > > > holes for the XML/RPC control connection. This is achieved > > > > by encapsulating the Control Connection over the L3 tunnel > > > > itself. > > > > > > > > This tool is not intended as a replacement for ovs-test, > > > > because ovs-test covers much broader set of test cases. > > > > > > > > Sample usage: > > > > Node1: ovs-l3ping -s 192.168.122.236,10.1.1.1 -t gre > > > > Node2: ovs-l3ping -c 192.168.122.220,10.1.1.2,10.1.1.1 -t gre > > > > > > > > Issue#11791 > > > > Signed-off-by: Ansis Atteka <aatt...@nicira.com> > > > But there might be a bigger issue here: the ovs-l3ping syntax is > > > really intimidating, at least at first glance. For the client there's > > > a mandatory -c option with this syntax: > > > > > > > TunnelRemoteIP,InnerIP[/mask][:ControlPort[:DataPort]],RemoteInnerIP[:Control-Port[:DataPort]] > > > That doesn't even fit on a line! > > > > > > Maybe the syntax isn't actually that difficult, but I could see a lot > > > of people looking at the existing description and just giving up. I > > > see that a lot of it is really optional, so can those bits be moved to > > > separate options? Or maybe the syntax can just be broken up or > > > described somehow differently. > > > > > I would go with solution that documents two invocations. One that > describes, > > how to start ovs-l3ping with default ports (simplified version), and > > another one > > that describes, how to override default ports (more sophisticated > version). > > > > What do you think? > > I think that would help a lot. > > > > Is the -t option mandatory? > > > > > Yes, it is required on server and client. > > OK. For a mandatory option, it's mentioned quite late in the synopsis > and the options sections. I would move it up close to the front. It > might also be helpful to add some text early in the option section > that says something like: > > One of \fB\-s\fR or \fB\-c\fR is required. The \fB\-t\fR > option is also required. > Yes, that was a good catch, because in Server invocation synopsis, I actually missed to mention the mandatory -t option at all. Will send v3 patch soon.
> > > > I see that we install ovs-test and ovs-l3ping on XenServer but > > > XenServer has Python 2.4 and I believe I see use of features new in > > > Python 2.6 in these programs (e.g. the string "format" method). > > > > > I believe that openvswitch-test package contents (e.g. ovs-test > > and ovs-l3ping) are distributed only with Debian. See the RH > > and XenServer *.spec files, where ovs-test and ovs-l3ping are > > removed right before the package is created. > > Oops, I misread the patch. I thought it was adding ovs-l3ping to a > list of files to be packaged but in fact it's adding it to a list of > files to be *not* packaged. Never mind. > > Thanks, > > Ben. >
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
