On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 6:07 PM, Darrell Ball <db...@vmware.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On 3/21/16, 9:41 AM, "dev on behalf of Russell Bryant" < > dev-boun...@openvswitch.org on behalf of russ...@ovn.org> wrote: > > >On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Darrell Ball <dlu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >On a related topic, I have a need for a localnet port that exists on a > >subset of hypervisors. In this case, I still only want to model it with a > >single logical localnet port. > > > >That would work today as long as no VIF ports are created on a chassis > that > >does not have that network available locally. We need to improve this on > >the OpenStack integration side to make sure that we never try to bind a > >port to a chassis where that network is not available. I was originally > >thinking that this work might help solve that problem, but now I'm not > sure > >that's true. Using the physical endpoints table would require a logical > >port and a physical endpoint for every hypervisor attached to that > network, > >which could be hundreds. > > > >I think this can all still work, but for this use case, we just need tom > >store the bridge mappings in the southbound database, as well. I was > >thinking of storing it as an external_id on the Chassis record. > > > >How does that sound? > > > If physical endpoints are used to check the chassis accessibility to a > given network, > multiple physical endpoints would be needed as you described. > > > A provider network access is usually specified at a chassis/physical port > level > (plus the encap part). > The existence of a physical access bridge comes from the port connectivity > knowledge. > > > With physical endpoints usage, by binding of the localnet port, the > connectivity is > being defined directly and physical access bridges can be auto created as > needed based > on this configuration. > > Bridge-mapping requires some preprocessing behind the scenes to find the > physical port mapping > on a given chassis to a network and then create another bridge if needed > and then create the bridge mapping, > which is then checked later on port binding time to see if the chassis has > access (i.e a bridge) to that network. > It would seem like the physical endpt creation and binding is a more > direct way of achieving the same result. > However, maybe I don’t understand some requirements/constraints for > localnet. > I'm not opposed to tracking the network availability per chassis info in the southbound db. That sounds good. However, I'd like to avoid having to create N logical ports, where N is the number of hypervisors attached to a network. I want to continue to create only 1 logical port just like today. -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
