On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:27 PM, Han Zhou <zhou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Han Zhou <zhou...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote: >> > >> > Will this have the desired effect? I think that putting multiple VIFs >> > on a logical switch and redirecting outputs to them through the localnet >> > port will have surprising consequences in some cases. The first case >> > that comes to mind is one where some of the VIFs have "unknown" among >> > their addresses. In such a case, I'd expect that a packet with an >> > otherwise unknown destination would output to each of those VIFs. Since >> > each of those outputs would be implemented by outputting to the localnet >> > port, we'd see packet duplication on the localnet port. >> > >> >> Oh yes, this is a scenario I didn't thought about. Thank you so much for pointing out! I will try to address the duplication problem in next version.
Ben, I just realized that "unknown" address is not a problem at all. Assume that we have both normal macs and "unknown" in addresses of a remote lport: For unknown macs, packets will match the lflow that outputs to mc_unknown group, which will be handled in physical.c in the multicast logic, where remote lports are already ruled out for multicast handling in this patch. For known macs, packets will never be duplicated. So I will remove the restriction statements and TODO added in v5, and submit a v6. Let me know if you see other problems. -- Best regards, Han _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
