On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Han Zhou <zhou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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. > Ah yes, you're right. Thanks. -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
