On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:30:43 -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: > (Even on new kernels I don't know how this would interact > with OVS tunnel ports that are not of type 'flow'. Would they also use > the compat code?)
This is a very good point. Although, on the other hand, how much common are tunnel ports with fixed parameters nowadays? > Even if we didn't have to worry about any legacy code, I'm not > convinced that taking tunnel configuration out of OVSDB is the right > thing from the user's perspective. Much of the value of OVS is around > programmatic and central control so we should allow that where > possible. For example, if a controller starts using a different > encapsulation type in a new version or for a different situation, it > seems undesirable to require the user to change things on each > machine. But tunnels can't be completely set up from a controller even now. At minimum, an (outer) IP address has to be assigned on each machine. Of course, there are cases in which an existing, already set up network is used as the underlay. If the main target is such use cases, then indeed, this could be perceived as usability regression. > With regards to veths, in many cases they are used to stitch > together different combinations of OVS and bridging, which is > something that is itself a pain point and something that I hope will > be less necessary in the future. Fair enough. Jiri _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
