On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Han Zhou wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Darrell Ball wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > - These flows are omitted for logical ports (other than router
> ports)
> > - that are down.
> > + These flows are omitted for router type por
On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Han Zhou wrote:
> This change should belong to the 1/3 patch. Each individual patch should
> be complete and independent to future patches.
>
This part is an RFC, so I was trying to make it easier to digest.
Normally, this would be part of patch 1, for the reason
On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Han Zhou wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Darrell Ball wrote:
> >
> > Do not install any potential logical switch "router type"
> > port arp responders. Logical router port arp responders
> > should be sufficient in this respect.
> > It seems a little wi
This change should belong to the 1/3 patch. Each individual patch should be
complete and independent to future patches.
On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Darrell Ball wrote:
> If arp responders are unnecessay for logical switch
> "router type" ports. then an adjustment is necessary
> for a test.
>
On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Darrell Ball wrote:
>
>
> - These flows are omitted for logical ports (other than router
ports)
> - that are down.
> + These flows are omitted for router type ports and other
> + logical ports that are down.
This part
On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Darrell Ball wrote:
>
> Do not install any potential logical switch "router type"
> port arp responders. Logical router port arp responders
> should be sufficient in this respect.
> It seems a little wierd for a logical switch not proxying
> for a remote VIF to be
I recall hearing that someone was adding etcd v3 support to OVN. Does
anyone have any info on whether this is still happening?
Thanks,
Frederick
___
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
