Thanks for this input. That’s helpful. Jerome De : "murali Venkateshaiah (muraliv)" <mura...@cisco.com> Date : jeudi 10 novembre 2016 à 16:15 À : Jerome Tollet <jtol...@cisco.com>, "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <fbroc...@cisco.com>, "Maros Marsalek -X (mmarsale - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco)" <mmars...@cisco.com> Cc : vpp-dev <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> Objet : Re: [vpp-dev] Interface bonding (binary APIs)
Quick FYI., atleast from our experience with Nfvi customers, where bonding is enabled, the runtime changes aren’t a requirement. VPP bonding at startup has been good enough. From: <vpp-dev-boun...@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev-boun...@lists.fd.io>> on behalf of "Jerome Tollet (jtollet)" <jtol...@cisco.com<mailto:jtol...@cisco.com>> Date: Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 6:53 AM To: "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <fbroc...@cisco.com<mailto:fbroc...@cisco.com>>, "Maros Marsalek -X (mmarsale - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco)" <mmars...@cisco.com<mailto:mmars...@cisco.com>> Cc: vpp-dev <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io>> Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] Interface bonding (binary APIs) Frank, I am not aware of customers changing their bonding configuration at runtime. Of course, we could always imagine scenario but nothing concrete. It would be good to get inputs from real users on this topic. Anyway, my email below was just pointing design differences. Jerome De : "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <fbroc...@cisco.com<mailto:fbroc...@cisco.com>> Date : jeudi 10 novembre 2016 à 15:37 À : Jerome Tollet <jtol...@cisco.com<mailto:jtol...@cisco.com>>, "Maros Marsalek -X (mmarsale - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco)" <mmars...@cisco.com<mailto:mmars...@cisco.com>> Cc : vpp-dev <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io>> Objet : RE: [vpp-dev] Interface bonding (binary APIs) Jerome, quick question: In which case do you see customers changing the configuration for link-aggregation/interface-bonding at runtime? I would typically see that as an install-time feature, which is why even with OVS things are done through the installer. Thanks, Frank From: Jerome Tollet (jtollet) Sent: Donnerstag, 10. November 2016 10:47 To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbroc...@cisco.com<mailto:fbroc...@cisco.com>>; Maros Marsalek -X (mmarsale - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco) <mmars...@cisco.com<mailto:mmars...@cisco.com>> Cc: vpp-dev <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io>> Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] Interface bonding (binary APIs) Frank, Maros, One important difference I see between OVS-DPDK and VPP is that VPP Bonding supports relies on DPDK. AFAIK, all DPDK parameters are set at startup and it is then impossible to modify them. On the other side, OVS-DPDK provides its own implementation of bonding and LCAP. So it is possible to modify bonded interfaces at runtime. Jerome De : <vpp-dev-boun...@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev-boun...@lists.fd.io>> au nom de "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <fbroc...@cisco.com<mailto:fbroc...@cisco.com>> Date : mercredi 9 novembre 2016 à 14:47 À : "Maros Marsalek -X (mmarsale - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco)" <mmars...@cisco.com<mailto:mmars...@cisco.com>>, vpp-dev <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io>> Objet : Re: [vpp-dev] Interface bonding (binary APIs) Hi Maros, to broaden the question: Which way do we want to go to configure “interface bonding”? From a solutions stack perspective, we need the installer to configure bonding as part of the network setup. Installers like Fuel or TripleO/APEX do this today for OVS. In case of FDS, we need to have the mechanics in TripleO/Apex, i.e. ? Have a config option similar to “BondInterfaceOvsOptions” for VPP in APEX/TripleO, e.g. BondInterfaceVPPOptions (see e.g. http://docs.openstack.org/developer/tripleo-docs/advanced_deployment/network_isolation.html) along with the associated puppet manifests. ? These puppet manifests would be expected to drive the associated config on VPP/DPDK. We could deal with CLI, but this is less desirable. Config through HC would be the obvious choice from a FDS perspective. That said, we have systems (like the ML2-VPP based setup), where we don’t have HC present (yet), but would still need interface bonding to be configured through TripleO/APEX. This somewhat leads to the more general question how we want VPP system level config to be driven while avoiding duplicated implementations. Do we default to CLI, or do we default to HC, or what would be the common denominator? Thanks, Frank From: vpp-dev-boun...@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev-boun...@lists.fd.io> [mailto:vpp-dev-boun...@lists.fd.io] On Behalf Of Maros Marsalek -X (mmarsale - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco) Sent: Donnerstag, 3. November 2016 12:29 To: vpp-dev <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io>> Subject: [vpp-dev] Interface bonding (binary APIs) Hey, VPP supports interface bonding and can be configured using DPDK configuration (https://wiki.fd.io/view/VPP/Command-line_Arguments#.22dpdk.22_parameters). Is there any support for interface bonding over binary APIs ? Thanks, Maros
_______________________________________________ vpp-dev mailing list vpp-dev@lists.fd.io https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
