On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Russell Bryant <russ...@ovn.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Han Zhou <zhou...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> This is required by next commit that allows lswitch with localnet >> port to be attached to multiple chassises. Without this patch, if >> an ARP request comes from localnet port, on each chassis there will >> be an ARP response, which is not desired. >> >> An new stage ls_in_arp_rsp is introduced for ARP responder before >> ls_in_l2_lkup. >> >> Suggested-by: Russell Bryant <russ...@ovn.org> >> Signed-off-by: Han Zhou <zhou...@gmail.com> >> --- >> ovn/northd/ovn-northd.8.xml | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++---- >> ovn/northd/ovn-northd.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- >> 2 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/ovn/northd/ovn-northd.8.xml b/ovn/northd/ovn-northd.8.xml >> index 1b2912e..cacd760 100644 >> --- a/ovn/northd/ovn-northd.8.xml >> +++ b/ovn/northd/ovn-northd.8.xml >> @@ -195,17 +195,22 @@ >> </li> >> </ul> >> >> - <h3>Ingress Table 3: Destination Lookup</h3> >> + <h3>Ingress Table 3: ARP responder</h3> >> > > Thanks for the quick fix! > > Moving this into its own table seems fine to me. I don't think it's required, right? It does at least seem easier to understand.
To match something (localnet here) to skip ARP responder but continue with l2_lkup flows, a new table seems to be the only way (at least the right way) to do it. And yes, it is more clear. > > Would we eventually add the equivalent for IPv6 neighbor discovery to the same table? If so, should we call it something else? That can always be changed later when we add more to it, though. > Good point! Yes, we could change the name if needed. > Acked-by: Russell Bryant <russ...@ovn.org> Thanks for the review! -- Best regards, Han _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
