Yeah that feature is only in OpenSolaris. Once S10 goes away, I'm sure a lot of 
the VSW infrastructure will leverage Crossbow, which changes things and makes 
networking easier in virtualized environments.

 *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Octave J. Orgeron
Solaris Virtualization Architect and Consultant
Web: http://unixconsole.blogspot.com
E-Mail: [email protected]
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*




________________________________
From: Steffen Weiberle <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; 
[email protected]; [email protected]; 
[email protected]; [email protected]
Sent: Mon, October 4, 2010 11:44:32 AM
Subject: Re: [ldoms-discuss] Network related questions concerning vsw spanning 
tree

The design document at http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Project+rbridges/ 
states that the bridging support would be responsible for loop detection. 
However, at this time it does not do so. So care should be taken if enabling 
this non-default feature in a domain.

Steffen

On 10/04/10 11:52, Steffen Weiberle wrote: 
I am not a certified network engineer, however, as Octave says, only one NIC 
can 
be attached to a vswitch. Thus there is no L2 forwarding of broadcasts in 
current domains, only layer 3, via IP forwarding. As said, that would involve a 
different MAC address.
>
>With the bridging bridging work that is in progress (or may be completed) on 
>Nevada (don't know the current state), it would be possible for a domain to 
>forward a broadcast. Only then could an ethernet frame sent in on one 
>interface 
>actually come out on another. Not sure if that would require the bridging 
>framework to do loop detection. I would think that is not an LDom function at 
>that point--the forwarding is being done as a service higher up.
>
>Steffen
>
>On 10/04/10 10:53, Octave Orgeron wrote: 
>Hi,
>>
>>I could be wrong about this, but my understanding of the VSW implementation 
>>is 
>>that it can only be attached to one physical NIC, VNIC (with Crossbow), or 
>>Link 
>>Aggregation to run upon. As a result, there shouldn't be an issue of a loop 
>>from 
>>that end. Now in the case of using IPMP in the guest domains where you have 
>>two 
>>separate VSWs that are attached to their own physical NIC on the same 
>>network, 
>>you won't have a loop either as the MAC addresses of those physical links are 
>>different. So again, no looping happening.
>>
>>Now is it possible to connect multiple VSWs together? Yes it is, but it 
>>requires 
>>an I/O domain to act as a router between them for traffic to be routed. 
>>Otherwise, it would be no different than a multi-homed server connected to 
>>multiple networks, but providing no routing between them.  
>>
>>
>>It is important to understand that the VSW is a dumb layer-2 switch, it's 
>>like 
>>going to Best Buy and getting a cheap Linksys, Netgear, or DLink switch. The 
>>big 
>>difference is that you're not limited on the number of ports, no special 
>>management features, and it's at the speed of memory and LDCs. So unlike 
>>VMware 
>>which tries to emulated a switch with ports and settings, VSWs are much 
>>simpler.
>>
>>If you want to understand it better, probably a good place to look is the 
>>UltraSPARC Hypervisor API document on our community site which talks about 
>>some 
>>of the low-level functionality happening there.
>>
>> 
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>>Octave J. Orgeron
>>Solaris Virtualization Architect and Consultant
>>Web: http://unixconsole.blogspot.com
>>E-Mail: [email protected]
>>*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>>To: [email protected]; [email protected]; 
>>[email protected]; [email protected]; 
>>[email protected]; [email protected]
>>Sent: Mon, October 4, 2010 6:28:46 AM
>>Subject: [ldoms-discuss] Network related questions concerning vsw spanning 
tree
>>
>> 
>>Hi there thank you for your answers below. Still some questions:
>> 
>>My concern regarding virtual switches is the fact that from a network 
>>perspective I don’t have control, but I am responsible if network attached 
>>servers cause network issues.
>> 
>>Primary concern is the fact that in theory it is possible to create layer-2 
>>loops with vswitches. Therefore I would like to know from Oracle/Sun what 
>>measures they have taken in order to avoid the creation of Layer-2 loops with 
>>virtual switches. I would like to have some documentation of Sun regarding 
>>the 
>>virtual network implementation within T5240. Please see the splendid vmware 
>>documentation reqarding “virtual networking concepts” for example. 
>>
>> 
>>Here my requirements for virtual switch implementations within servers:
>> 
>>-virtual switch isolation is required. It should not be possible to connect 2 
>>or 
>>more virtual switches in the same server with each other. What mechanisms are 
>>in 
>>place on the T5240 to prevent this?
>>-suppose that a virtual switch has 2 fysical uplinks, what mechanisms are in 
>>place to prevent the forwarding of a frame coming in on 
>>
>>uplink1 to uplink2 (thereby creating a layer-2 loop)
>> 
>>It would be apriciated, for our network guys to get a satisfied answer for 
>this.
>> 
>>Thanks in adv
>> 
>>Anne Adema
>> 
>>Martin Qoute:”
>> 
>> 
>>Hi,
>>
>>For a PoC we're running with LDOMs 1.3 and LDOMs 2.0 I have some questions 
>>that 
>>hopefully someone can help me with. We're using Solaris 10 9/10 (u9) for 
>>control/service domain and guest domains.
>>
>>1. Does the vswitch participate in Spanning-tree?
>>  If yes, can this be disabled?
>>  Any differences for LDOMs 1.3 and 2.0 here?
>>No idea, I never observed spanning- tree behaviour of vswitches
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>2. How can the bandwidth that a VNIC consumes be limited?
>>  (Case: we're creating multiple non-global zones in 1 LDOM guest and
>>  want to prevent that one non-global zone can take up all bandwidth for a
>>  single VNIC).
>>OTOH no way to do this in an I/O domain only without Crossbow. 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>3. How can we configure "IP Multipathing" for the vswitch with LDOMs 1.3?
>>  I know LDOMs 2.0 has this capability...
>>Question: do you want to connect a guest redundantly to the outside world or 
>>do 
>>you want to connect whole vswitch redundantly to the outside world?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>4. Using VLAN tagging on the vswitch, van I assign one VLAN to a VNIC in a
>>  guest domain? So that there's a VLAN between the vswitch and the guest,
>>  accessible as a VNIC from the guest?
>>Yes. IIRC possible since v1.2, described in the slides on LDOMs 
>>under https://sunspace.sfbay.sun.com/x/c9VnDg (sorry only accessible from the 
>>Oracle intranet)
>> 
>>“
>>
>>Stefan Quote”:
>> 
>>1. Does the vswitch participate in Spanning-tree?
>>  If yes, can this be disabled?
>>  Any differences for LDOMs 1.3 and 2.0 here?
>>No idea, I never observed spanning- tree behaviour of vswitches
>> 
>>It doesn't have to.  It can not be configured to create loops, so we don't 
>>need 
>>to spanning-tree to protect against them.  Externally, it appears as a normal 
>>ethernet port, so the real switches at the other end of the cable can do 
>>their 
>>spanning tree stuff, if they're so inclined.
>>
>>Turning it off completly should'nt be supported on any switch.  I assume you 
>>mean turning off the spanning tree checking before taking a port online.  
>>Cisco 
>>switches used to do this, and you could turn this off, as in "go online 
>>first, 
>>check later, then, if loop detected, take port offline".  This would speed up 
>>the onlining of ports, but not disable spanning tree checking completely.
>>
>>
>>2. How can the bandwidth that a VNIC consumes be limited?
>>  (Case: we're creating multiple non-global zones in 1 LDOM guest and
>>  want to prevent that one non-global zone can take up all bandwidth for a
>>  single VNIC).
>>OTOH no way to do this in an I/O domain only without Crossbow. 
>> 
>>you'll need crossbow for that, as martin already said”
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>
>>
________________________________
 _______________________________________________ ldoms-discuss mailing list 
[email protected] 
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ldoms-discuss 


      
_______________________________________________
ldoms-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ldoms-discuss
  • [ldoms... anne.adema
    • R... Octave Orgeron
      • ... Steffen Weiberle
        • ... Steffen Weiberle
          • ... Octave Orgeron
            • ... Steffen Weiberle
    • R... Sriharsha Basavapatna - Sun Microsystems - Menlo Park United States

Reply via email to