[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-6505?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13980859#comment-13980859
 ] 

ASF subversion and git services commented on CLOUDSTACK-6505:
-------------------------------------------------------------

Commit 8e4391bff310bd3583cf81fe0260e8349d05f82f in cloudstack's branch 
refs/heads/master from [~murali.reddy]
[ https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;h=8e4391b ]

CLOUDSTACK-6505: XenServer bridge for the OVS tunnel network gets reset
on the hosts in the xenserver cluster

this fix ensures that brige is created only once so that openflow rules
configured on the bridge are not lost.


> bridge gets reset for cluster level OVS network.
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CLOUDSTACK-6505
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-6505
>             Project: CloudStack
>          Issue Type: Bug
>      Security Level: Public(Anyone can view this level - this is the 
> default.) 
>    Affects Versions: 4.4.0
>            Reporter: Murali Reddy
>            Assignee: Murali Reddy
>             Fix For: 4.4.0
>
>
> This is regression introduced by below commit.
> commit faf52530cc9ff5827825eefe1c09b2887d0a0883
> Author: Murali Reddy <[email protected]>
> Date:   Tue Apr 8 19:04:06 2014 +0530
>     CLOUDSTACK-6356: OVS: tunnel networks does not work across the XenServer
>     clusers
>     
> To make internal network work across the cluster, above fix introduced logic 
> to plug/un-plug VIF in dom0 connected to OVS internal nework. this logic 
> would ensure there is a bridge created on each host. But this logic should 
> execute only once to created bridge. Currently its executing multiple times 
> resulting in bridge to be recreated and hence loosing all the open flow 
> rules. configured.
> Fix for this bug should ensure we only create bridge once on each for the OVS 
> tunnel network.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Reply via email to