I believe that one of the problems is that if you set a certain MTU in an OVS switch, new connected ports will be automatically assigned to such MTU the ovs-vswitchd daemon.
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Ian Wells <ijw.ubu...@cack.org.uk> wrote: > Since OVS is doing L2 forwarding, you should be fine setting the MTU to as > high as you choose, which would probably be the segment_mtu in the config, > since that's what it defines - the largest MTU that (from the Neutron API > perspective) is usable and (from the OVS perspective) will be used in the > system. A 1500MTU Neutron network will work fine over a 9000MTU OVS switch. > > What won't work is sending a 1500MTU network to a 9000MTU router port. So > if you're doing any L3 (where the packet arrives at an interface, rather > than travels a segment) you need to consider those MTUs in light of the > Neutron network they're attached to. > -- > Ian. > > On 20 September 2017 at 09:58, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrac...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Ajay Kalambur (akalambu) >> <akala...@cisco.com> wrote: >> > So I was forced to explicitly set the MTU on br-int >> > ovs-vsctl set int br-int mtu_request=9000 >> > >> > >> > Without this the tap device added to br-int would get MTU 1500 >> > >> > Would this be something the ovs l2 agent can handle since it creates >> the bridge? >> >> Yes, I guess we could do that if it fixes your problem. The issue >> stems from the fact that we use a single bridge for different networks >> with different MTUs, and it does break some assumptions kernel folks >> make about a switch (that all attached ports steer traffic in the same >> l2 domain, which is not the case because of flows we set). You may >> want to report a bug against Neutron and we can then see how to handle >> that. I will probably not be as simple as setting the value to 9000 >> because different networks have different MTUs, and plugging those >> mixed ports in the same bridge may trigger MTU updates on unrelated >> tap devices. We will need to test how kernel behaves then. >> >> Also, you may be interested in reviewing an old openvswitch-dev@ >> thread that I once started here: >> https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2016-June/316733.html >> Sadly, I never followed up with a test scenario that wouldn't involve >> OpenStack, for OVS folks to follow up on, so it never moved anywhere. >> >> Cheers, >> Ihar >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> ______________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscrib >> e >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev