Hi Dumitru, Thank you for the review. I agree that the API should be more general and that the patch needs a smaller series.
The target case is a backend with no logical port in the probing deployment. EVPN is the transport used in my lab. The endpoint table associates each backend with a local source port and source address. I will investigate default source fields on Load_Balancer_Health_Check. The source must still identify the tenant context, especially when a load balancer has multiple attachments. The RFC extends the existing Service_Monitor implementation. It already provides ownership checks, flow acknowledgement, and TCP reply correlation. My freshness question concerned an online result that remains in SB after completed checks stop. The added sequencing and northd expiry address that case. The RFC also invalidates results when source or forwarding state changes. I will review which additions are needed, and treat any general freshness change separately, with focused tests. The neighbor changes combine the new source's lifecycle with general cleanup handling. Existing synchronization already withdraws stale entries while an interface remains monitored. The added cleanup withdraws previous announcements when an interface monitor is removed, and queues failed withdrawals for retry. It also withdraws the new source during shutdown. I will separate the general changes and add tests that reproduce failures on the existing code before presenting them as bug fixes. I will send the IPv6 DAD correction separately and split the feature into smaller commits. The native tests cover configuration and source flows. I will add system-ovn.at and multinode.at coverage for actual probes, failure and recovery, route withdrawal, restart, and overlapping tenant addresses. I will follow the documented controller-first rolling upgrade procedure. I will test the new controller with the old schema, then test schema conversion and feature activation after the northd upgrade. By allocation limits, I meant probe resource consumption. The RFC's allocation guard is controller-wide. I should have described that more clearly. Would default source fields on the existing health-check row be a useful starting point for the revised API? Regards, Gavin _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
