Thanks, I merged this. Ethan
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > Beautiful. > > On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 02:30:55PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: >> How about this? >> >> bond: Sending learning packets on active-backup. >> >> Suppose we have an active bond with two ports, eth1 and eth2, >> attached to a standard L2 learning switch which does not know it's >> participating in a bond (i.e. isn't running LACP). Suppose eth1 is >> active and therefore the L2 learning switch is forwarding traffic >> to eth1 as instructed by its learning table. Now suppose, for some >> reason, OVS fails over from eth1 to eth2. For each destination >> MAC, the L2 learning switch will continue sending traffic to eth1, >> which will be dropped, until either traffic from that MAC appears >> on eth2, or the learning table entries expire. >> >> To alleviate this issue, this patch sends learning packets on newly >> active interfaces in active-backup bonds in order to educate the >> upstream network of the change. >> >> Requested-by: Frido Roose <fr.ro...@gmail.com> >> Signed-off-by: Ethan Jackson <et...@nicira.com> >> >> Ethan >> >> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: >> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 03:51:30PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: >> >> When an active-backup bond fails over, it makes sense to update >> >> upstream learning tables of the change so that traffic is forwarded >> >> to the correct slave. >> >> >> >> Requested-by: Frido Roose <fr.ro...@gmail.com> >> >> Signed-off-by: Ethan Jackson <et...@nicira.com> >> > >> > The patch looks fine but I'd really like a more spelled out rationale >> > in the commit message. Otherwise a year from now when I read the >> > commit I won't know why it makes sense. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Ben. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
