With a bit more thinking, since we have a centralized configuration database,
there is no benefit to have the feature of switch stacking over a cascading.
But we need the spanning tree to be able to make a redudant topology.
________________________________
De : Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com>
À : DarkBls <dark...@yahoo.com>
Cc : Justin Pettit <jpet...@nicira.com>; discuss@openvswitch.org
Envoyé le : Mer 26 mai 2010, 1h 13min 59s
Objet : Re: [ovs-discuss] Re : Re : Re : OvS 1.0.0 Compile error on fedora 13
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 2:24 AM, DarkBls <dark...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>4) OvS with GRE
>
>>OvS deployed on each server (blade) and connected to a distant configuration
>>DB. Each OvS "switch" are cascading to antoher one through Gre Tunnel.
>
>>PRO:
>
>>Nothing to do on hardware in case of adding / removing virtual platform.
>>Can migrate a full switch with VM on another server without doing
>>reconfiguration if the IP used for GRE doesn't change
>
>>CONS:
>
>>Cascading and no stacking. Beware of loop (since there is no STP on OvS) and
>>single point of failure in topology
>>Scalability / performance ?
>>Would have prefered GRE stack instead of cascading to be able to construct
>>one (or several) virtual switches through hardware.
>
Can you explain this last sentence a bit more? I think the abstraction of a
GRE virtual port is fairly common, so I'm not sure how it differs from what you
were expecting/would prefer.
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_openvswitch.org
