On 12/15/2011 10:48 AM, Justin Pettit wrote:
On Dec 6, 2011, at 3:18 PM, David Erickson wrote:
I do agree with your analysis in that it is narrowing some traffic but actually
broadening it for ARPs to/from a remote. I think we can actually solve both
problems by unioning the existing b/c rul
On Dec 6, 2011, at 3:18 PM, David Erickson wrote:
> I do agree with your analysis in that it is narrowing some traffic but
> actually broadening it for ARPs to/from a remote. I think we can actually
> solve both problems by unioning the existing b/c rule with my proposed b*/c*
> rule ie:
>
>
On 12/06/2011 01:33 PM, Justin Pettit wrote:
On Nov 13, 2011, at 8:38 PM, David Erickson wrote:
On 11/1/2011 1:36 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 12:11:11PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
Justin, you've also experienced the pain of in-band control. Would
you mind reviewing David's anal
On Nov 13, 2011, at 8:38 PM, David Erickson wrote:
> On 11/1/2011 1:36 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 12:11:11PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>>> Justin, you've also experienced the pain of in-band control. Would
>>> you mind reviewing David's analysis?
>> Justin, did you ever get a c
On 12/1/2011 12:05 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 12:02:46PM -0800, David Erickson wrote:
On 12/1/2011 12:01 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 06:18:15PM -0800, David Erickson wrote:
I think I've run into another semi-related issue with inband. I
recently changed the
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 12:02:46PM -0800, David Erickson wrote:
> On 12/1/2011 12:01 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 06:18:15PM -0800, David Erickson wrote:
> >>I think I've run into another semi-related issue with inband. I
> >>recently changed the fail mode of my OVS instances fr
On 12/1/2011 12:01 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 06:18:15PM -0800, David Erickson wrote:
I think I've run into another semi-related issue with inband. I
recently changed the fail mode of my OVS instances from standalone
to secure because I wanted them to continue using the rules
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 06:18:15PM -0800, David Erickson wrote:
> I think I've run into another semi-related issue with inband. I
> recently changed the fail mode of my OVS instances from standalone
> to secure because I wanted them to continue using the rules that had
> been set in the event the
I think I've run into another semi-related issue with inband. I
recently changed the fail mode of my OVS instances from standalone to
secure because I wanted them to continue using the rules that had been
set in the event the controller died or needed restarting. This had the
unfortunate side
On 11/13/2011 11:23 PM, David Erickson wrote:
On 11/13/2011 9:16 PM, Justin Pettit wrote:
On Nov 13, 2011, at 8:38 PM, David Erickson wrote:
On 11/1/2011 1:36 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 12:11:11PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
Justin, you've also experienced the pain of in-band c
On 11/13/2011 9:16 PM, Justin Pettit wrote:
On Nov 13, 2011, at 8:38 PM, David Erickson wrote:
On 11/1/2011 1:36 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 12:11:11PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
Justin, you've also experienced the pain of in-band control. Would
you mind reviewing David's analy
On Nov 13, 2011, at 8:38 PM, David Erickson wrote:
> On 11/1/2011 1:36 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 12:11:11PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>>> Justin, you've also experienced the pain of in-band control. Would
>>> you mind reviewing David's analysis?
>> Justin, did you ever get a c
On 11/1/2011 1:36 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 12:11:11PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
Justin, you've also experienced the pain of in-band control. Would
you mind reviewing David's analysis?
Justin, did you ever get a chance to look this over?
Just following up with an attached p
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 12:11:11PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Justin, you've also experienced the pain of in-band control. Would
> you mind reviewing David's analysis?
Justin, did you ever get a chance to look this over?
___
discuss mailing list
discuss@
Justin, can you review David's analysis? He's been waiting for a
while on this.
Thanks,
Ben.
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 12:11:11PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 11:39:23AM -0700, David Erickson wrote:
> > On 9/9/2011 9:54 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > >On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 09:36:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 15:15, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> If you want to implement it and (this is important) test it, and the
> implementation is clean enough that it's clear it doesn't break
> anything else, then it seems reasonable to accept it.
>
I will certainly take a look at it.
--
Nick
_
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 03:11:57PM -0400, Nicholas Bastin wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 15:05, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> > It seems reasonable to me, if it solves David's problem.
>
> Well, it solves other problems too.. :-) (It mirrors an in-band mode that
> indigo has, so if you already are tagg
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 15:05, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> It seems reasonable to me, if it solves David's problem.
>
Well, it solves other problems too.. :-) (It mirrors an in-band mode that
indigo has, so if you already are tagging your in-band control traffic, it
makes sense to match that with more sp
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 11:39:23AM -0700, David Erickson wrote:
> On 9/9/2011 9:54 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> >On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 09:36:25AM -0700, David Erickson wrote:
> >>On 9/9/2011 9:16 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:11:39PM -0700, David Erickson wrote:
> Hi All-
> >
On 9/9/2011 12:05 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 02:55:18PM -0400, Nicholas Bastin wrote:
Would you accept a patch to OVS which allowed a user to configure a single
VLAN to which the in-band rules applied? Basically, instead of wildcarding
the VLAN tag on all the in-band rules, it
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 02:55:18PM -0400, Nicholas Bastin wrote:
> Would you accept a patch to OVS which allowed a user to configure a single
> VLAN to which the in-band rules applied? Basically, instead of wildcarding
> the VLAN tag on all the in-band rules, it would optionally set them all to
>
I'm still parsing David's reply, but I have a suggestion that I floated by
him offline, which may solve some problems...maybe.. :-)
Would you accept a patch to OVS which allowed a user to configure a single
VLAN to which the in-band rules applied? Basically, instead of wildcarding
the VLAN tag on
On 9/9/2011 9:54 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 09:36:25AM -0700, David Erickson wrote:
On 9/9/2011 9:16 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:11:39PM -0700, David Erickson wrote:
Hi All-
I'm seeing some confusing behavior happening relating to ARPs and
OVS 1.2.1 (also
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 09:36:25AM -0700, David Erickson wrote:
> On 9/9/2011 9:16 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> >On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:11:39PM -0700, David Erickson wrote:
> >>Hi All-
> >>I'm seeing some confusing behavior happening relating to ARPs and
> >>OVS 1.2.1 (also on 1.1.1 and probably 1.0.
Thanks Nick for the reference that was useful, I had seen it before but
forgot where it lived.
On 9/9/2011 9:16 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:11:39PM -0700, David Erickson wrote:
Hi All-
I'm seeing some confusing behavior happening relating to ARPs and
OVS 1.2.1 (also on 1.1.
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:11:39PM -0700, David Erickson wrote:
> Hi All-
> I'm seeing some confusing behavior happening relating to ARPs and
> OVS 1.2.1 (also on 1.1.1 and probably 1.0.1). This is a XS machine
> with 1 ethernet port, so in-band connection from OVS to the
> controller. Specifically
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 21:11, David Erickson wrote:
> Also is there a document that specifies OVSs behavior in in-band
> environments such as XS with one ethernet port? I would expect after the
> controller is connected that all packets coming in/out other than the
> controller connection (and p
Hi All-
I'm seeing some confusing behavior happening relating to ARPs and OVS
1.2.1 (also on 1.1.1 and probably 1.0.1). This is a XS machine with 1
ethernet port, so in-band connection from OVS to the controller.
Specifically there are two cases where I would expect packets to be sent
up to th
28 matches
Mail list logo
