On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Russell Bryant <rbry...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 07/14/2015 11:58 AM, Alex Wang wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Russell Bryant <rbry...@redhat.com > > <mailto:rbry...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > > Awesome work. I plan to do a more in depth review but I had a quick > > comment about something I thought of last night. > > > > On 07/13/2015 11:22 PM, Alex Wang wrote: > > > This commit adds the gateway module to ovn-controller-vtep. The > > > module will register the physical switches to ovnsb as chassis and > > > constantly update the "logical_switches" column in Chassis table. > > > > > > Limitation: > > > > > > - Do not support reading multiple tunnel ips of physical switch. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Wang <al...@nicira.com <mailto: > al...@nicira.com>> > > > > > + /* If not already in 'lswitches', adds the > logical switch > > > + * to logical port map. The logical port is > defined as > > > + * {pswitch->name}_{ls->name}. */ > > > + if (!smap_get(&lswitches, ls->name)) { > > > + char *lport = xasprintf("%s_%s", > pswitch->name, ls->name); > > > + > > > + smap_add(&lswitches, ls->name, lport); > > > > I'm going to need a way to make sure that an OpenStack Neutron end > user > > is not able to create ports with a name that could interfere with > > special port names. I'm going to need special port names for the > > Neutron provider networks thing I'm working on, too. > > > > A simple solution would be to adopt a convention where we prefix all > > special port names with "ovn_". The Neutron driver could just reject > > any port names specified by users with that prefix and only use that > for > > ports created automatically for a special purpose. > > > > > > > > Could you explain more on what falls into the 'special port' category? > > only gateway logical ports or also the hv logical ports? > > The special logical ports are: > > - what you're adding, connection to logical switch on VTEP enabled > switch > > - something i'm working on, connection to a physical network that is > local to each host running ovn-controller (more on that in the link > below) > > > I think the > > ovn-controller just read the attached port from integration bridge > without > > prefixing. So, could it also be a collision there? > > For some reason I was thinking that the user-supplied name for a Neutron > port was used as the OVN port name, but that's not correct. User > supplied port names are not used for OVN port names so my concern > doesn't really make sense. > > Trying to understand, in your case, multiple HVs could each have a connection to the same provider network right? > However, I still wonder if we should do something instead of encoding > the information in the name. I posted some more thoughts in this message: > > http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2015-July/057443.html > > Take a look and see if that makes sense. > > -- > Russell Bryant > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
