This could use a review (it should be easy).
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 10:28:43AM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote: > At first glance it wasn't obvious why there was the possibility for more > than one switch. > > Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> > --- > vtep/vtep.xml | 17 ++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/vtep/vtep.xml b/vtep/vtep.xml > index cf6bf74..80fc99d 100644 > --- a/vtep/vtep.xml > +++ b/vtep/vtep.xml > @@ -36,7 +36,22 @@ > exactly one record in the <ref table="Global"/> table. > > <column name="switches"> > - The physical switches managed by the VTEP. > + <p> > + The physical switch or switches managed by the VTEP. > + </p> > + > + <p> > + When a physical switch integrates support for this VTEP schema, which > + is expected to be the most common case, this column should point to > one > + <ref table="Physical_Switch"/> record that represents the switch > + itself. In another possible implementation, a server or a VM > presents > + a VTEP schema front-end interface to one or more physical switches, > + presumably communicating with those physical switches over a > + proprietary protocol. In that case, this column would point to one > + <ref table="Physical_Switch"/> for each physical switch, and the set > + might change over time as the front-end server comes to represent a > + differing set of switches. > + </p> > </column> > > <group title="Database Configuration"> > -- > 1.7.10.4 > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
