t;> > physical network MTU via config option?
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Ryan Moats wrote:
>> >> > Jesse Gross wrote on 05/06/2016 11:11:10 AM:
&g
g option?
> >
> > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Jesse Gross wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Ryan Moats wrote:
> >> > Jesse Gross wrote on 05/06/2016 11:11:10 AM:
> >> >
> >> >> From: Jesse Gross
> >
;> >> To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS
>> >> Cc: Matt Kassawara , discuss
>> >> , Thomas Graf
>> >> Date: 05/06/2016 11:11 AM
>> >
>> >
>> >> Subject: Re: [ovs-discuss] MTU considerations for OVN
>> >>
>> &g
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 6:50 PM, Matt Kassawara wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> I'm resurrecting this thread after a fairly lengthy discussion of MTU with
> Ben at the recent OpenStack summit. Have you given the topic any further
> thought toward implementation in a reasonable way? Can you elaborate on the
>
>
> >> From: Jesse Gross
> >> To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS
> >> Cc: Matt Kassawara , discuss
> >> , Thomas Graf
> >> Date: 05/06/2016 11:11 AM
> >
> >
> >> Subject: Re: [ovs-discuss] MTU considerations for OVN
> >>
>
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Ryan Moats wrote:
> Jesse Gross wrote on 05/06/2016 11:11:10 AM:
>
>> From: Jesse Gross
>> To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS
>> Cc: Matt Kassawara , discuss
>> , Thomas Graf
>> Date: 05/06/2016 11:11 AM
>
>
>> Subje
Jesse Gross wrote on 05/06/2016 11:11:10 AM:
> From: Jesse Gross
> To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS
> Cc: Matt Kassawara , discuss
> , Thomas Graf
> Date: 05/06/2016 11:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [ovs-discuss] MTU considerations for OVN
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 8:
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Ryan Moats wrote:
> "discuss" wrote on 05/04/2016 06:09:04 PM:
>
>> From: Jesse Gross
>> To: Matt Kassawara
>> Cc: discuss
>> Date: 05/04/2016 06:09 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ovs-discuss] MTU considerations for OVN
>&
"discuss" wrote on 05/04/2016 06:09:04
PM:
> From: Jesse Gross
> To: Matt Kassawara
> Cc: discuss
> Date: 05/04/2016 06:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [ovs-discuss] MTU considerations for OVN
> Sent by: "discuss"
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 3:50 PM, M
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Matt Kassawara wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> I'm resurrecting this thread after a fairly lengthy discussion of MTU with
> Ben at the recent OpenStack summit. Have you given the topic any further
> thought toward implementation in a reasonable way? Can you elaborate on the
> a
Jesse,
I'm resurrecting this thread after a fairly lengthy discussion of MTU with
Ben at the recent OpenStack summit. Have you given the topic any further
thought toward implementation in a reasonable way? Can you elaborate on the
architectural limitations? At the moment, the OpenStack implementat
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Matt Kassawara wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> We can raise the MTU of the underlying network until it reaches the maximum
> value for the physical equipment, a common situation for 10+ Gbps data
> center networks. For example, if the physical equipment supports a maximum
> 900
Jesse,
We can raise the MTU of the underlying network until it reaches the maximum
value for the physical equipment, a common situation for 10+ Gbps data
center networks. For example, if the physical equipment supports a maximum
9000 MTU, we can't further increase it to account for overlay protoco
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Matt Kassawara wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Conventional OpenStack Networking service (neutron) drivers such as Open
> vSwitch and Linux bridge have a long history of MTU issues involving overlay
> networks. For example, consider the following typical virtual network
> archite
Hi,
Conventional OpenStack Networking service (neutron) drivers such as Open
vSwitch and Linux bridge have a long history of MTU issues involving
overlay networks. For example, consider the following typical virtual
network architecture:
1) A provider network using native Ethernet or 802.1q taggi
15 matches
Mail list logo
