Thank for the reply. Yes of course it's unusual. But mainly for testing purpose. I tested both taged and untagged port.
I want to use the kernel bonding implementation for stability and policy in my firm. Furthermore, the kernel implementation give for now more control on it. (LACP, Fail over etc..). Is the the feature officially supported ? ----- Message d'origine ---- De : Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> À : DarkBls <[email protected]> Cc : [email protected] Envoyé le : Mardi, 6 Octobre 2009, 18h17mn 45s Objet : Re: Re : [ovs-discuss] A few question and experience about Open vSwitch DarkBls <[email protected]> writes: > [root] # cat ovs-vswitchd.conf > bridge.mybr.port=bond0 > bridge.mybr.port=tap0 > > #Config VLAN > #vlan.eth1.trunks=210 > #vlan.tap-alcide.trunks=210 > #vlan.eth1.trunks=0 > #vlan.tap-alcide.trunks=0 > > #Config en non tague > vlan.bond0.tag=210 > vlan.tap0.tag=210 > #vlan.eth1.tag=0 > #vlan.tap-alcide.tag=0 This is an unusual configuration. First, the bridge has only two ports. In itself, that's not odd, but both of them have the same tagged vlan. That will have no useful effect in practice, because there are no trunk ports. Also, it looks like you have configured a bond using the Linux kernel bonding implementation. That might work, but we have not tested it. Usually, I would expect that you would use the Open vSwitch implementation of bonding, which can be configured by adding settings to the configuration file. The ovs-vswitchd.conf(5) manpage explains how. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_openvswitch.org
