Pls See inline
On 3/2/16, 3:00 AM, "dev on behalf of Mickey Spiegel" <dev-boun...@openvswitch.org on behalf of emspi...@us.ibm.com> wrote: >I was wondering if Justin's proposal below would be supported. I did not see >the proposed physical.c changes in the patches that Darrell sent out, so I was >not sure if this would be the case or not. Justin's proposal does seem to >preserve current behavior while adding some new behavior. > >I do have one major concern regarding applicability of a physical endpoint >binding to the software gateway proposal. I thought the software gateway >proposal would be primarily aimed at L3, handling features like Floating IP >and SNAT. When there are a large number of tenants that need the same external >access (e.g. internet connectivity from a public data center), even when there >is only one router per tenant with its gateway interface pinned to a chassis, >the total number of router gateway interfaces sharing the same external >network may be large. We would want the ability to spread different tenant >router gateway interfaces across different chassis that are all connected to >the same external network. In this case, one "localnet" port would still map >to N chassis. Spreading load across multiple gateways will need to be supported My intention is to model as load balancing across tunnels destined to multiple gateways. The external network physical endpoints should only be exposed on the gateway chassis So the load balancing is across multiple logical ports/tunnels as viewed by the sender > >Mickey > >-----Justin Pettit <jpet...@ovn.org> wrote: ----- >To: Russell Bryant <russ...@ovn.org> >From: Justin Pettit <jpet...@ovn.org> >Date: 03/01/2016 08:30PM >Cc: Mickey Spiegel/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS, "dev@openvswitch.org" ><dev@openvswitch.org>, Darrell Lu <dlu...@gmail.com> >Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [OVS-dev]: OVN: RFC re: logical and physical endpoint >separation proposal > >> On Mar 1, 2016, at 6:44 PM, Russell Bryant <russ...@ovn.org> wrote: >> >> FWIW, this is what I was trying to figure out with my questions as well. >> It does seem like there is something missing here. >> >> With localnet ports today, a single logical port maps to a physical port on >> N chassis. It's not 1 to 1, which this model seems to assume. > >Is that true? I think the documentation implies that, but I'm not sure if the >implementation does. In the Logical_Port table, there can be zero or one >"phys_endpt". If someone doesn't populate "phys_endpt" (or sets "type" to >"vlan" and "ingress_encap" to the vlan id), then it should have the behavior >that you describe. I spoke with Darrell at some length today, and I think >he'll be sending out a revised version. > >I think the final version is supposed to behave like this: If "phys_endpt" is >empty or exists with only a vlan tag, then it will behave just like it does >now: the bindings will happen on any hypervisor with the appropriate >"external-ids:ovn-bridge-mappings" set. If "phys_endpt" specifies a >particular chassis, then it would only be instantiated there. (I think this >latter case could be useful when creating a software gateway.) > >I need to read the localnet implementation and Darrell's proposed changes more >carefully, but does the previous paragraph sound reasonable? I'll dig into it >more tomorrow, but please let me know if I'm way off course. > >--Justin > > > > >_______________________________________________ >dev mailing list >dev@openvswitch.org >http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
