atch
> either today evening or tomorrow (unless I hit some new bugs). But
> specifically for DNAT and SNAT, we want the router pipeline's ingress and
> egress to happen on the same host.
>
>
>>
>> Mickey
>>
>>
>> -Darrell Ball wrote: -
>
;
>
> -----Darrell Ball wrote: -
> To: Mickey Spiegel/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS
> From: Darrell Ball
> Date: 05/09/2016 09:11PM
> Cc: d...@openvswitch.com
> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [patch_v1] ovn: add local router support (RFC)
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Mickey S
" can be on multiple chassis, I start
thinking about multiple possible chassis and ECMP which would add significant
complexity.
Mickey
-Darrell Ball wrote: -
To: Mickey Spiegel/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS
From: Darrell Ball
Date: 05/09/2016 09:11PM
Cc: d...@openvswitch.com
Subject: Re: [ovs
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Mickey Spiegel wrote:
> I am missing something basic here.
>
> In your tests, you have logical switch bob that seems like it could be
> present on both hv1 and hv2, and a logical router R2 that is local to hv2
> but not present on hv1.
>
Exactly
> Wouldn't the l
I am missing something basic here.
In your tests, you have logical switch bob that seems like it could be present
on both hv1 and hv2, and a logical router R2 that is local to hv2 but not
present on hv1.
Wouldn't the logical switch bob flows on hv1 still send packets locally to the
patch port r
