sure, I will try that Thank you very much
-- Nan On Friday, 18 October, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Alex Wang wrote: > Yes, you can try ping from the two vms. and the ping should work with this > setup, > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Nan <codingcat...@gmail.com > (mailto:codingcat...@gmail.com)> wrote: > > Ah, thanks, Alex > > > > if I want the VMs on host 1 and host 2 to be able to communicate with each > > other, > > > > I still need the tunnel? > > > > -- > > Nan > > > > > > On Friday, 18 October, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Alex Wang wrote: > > > > > Well, as the FAQ says, > > > > > > """ > > > A physical Ethernet device that is part of an Open vSwitch bridge should > > > not have an IP address. If one does, then that IP address will not be > > > fully functional. > > > > > > """ > > > > > > The eth1 on br0 still has address "192.168.2.1". > > > > > > If you still want eth0 on br0 and eth1 having address "192.168.2.1", one > > > feasible configuration is to use tunnel. E.g. > > > > > > On host1: > > > ovs-vsctl del-port eth1 > > > ovs-vsctl add-port tunnel_to_host2 -- set interface tunnel_to_host2 > > > type=gre options:remote_ip=192.168.2.2 > > > > > > On host2: > > > ovs-vsctl del-port eth1 > > > ovs-vsctl add-port tunnel_to_host1 -- set interface tunnel_to_host1 > > > type=gre options:remote_ip=192.168.2.1 > > > > > > This is actually a common solution for directing traffic to corresponding > > > physical interface. > > > > > > Thanks, > > >
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
