On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 06:39:14PM -0400, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > First, some questions as to implementation (or feasibility) of several > todo items in my list for the patch. > > 1) I initially thought that, because VXLAN would have limited space > for both networks and ports in its VNI, the encap type would not be > able to support as many of both as Geneve / STT, and so we would need > to enforce the limit programmatically somehow. But in OVN context, is > it even doable? North DB resources may be created before any chassis > are registered; once a chassis that is VXLAN only joins, it's too late > to forbid the spilling resources from existence (though it may be a > good time to detect this condition and perhaps fail to register the > chassis / configure flow tables). How do we want to handle this case? > Do we fail to start VXLAN configured ovn-controller when too many > networks / ports per network created? Do we forbid creating too many > resources when a chassis is registered that is VXLAN only? Both? Or do > we leave it up to the deployment / CMS to control the chassis / north > DB configuration? > > 2) Similar to the issue above, I originally planned to forbid using > ACLs relying on ingress port when a VXLAN chassis is involved (because > the VNI won't carry the information). I believe the approach should be > similar to how we choose to handle the issue with the maximum number > of resources, described above. > > I am new to OVN so maybe there are existing examples for such > situations already that I could get inspiration from. Let me know what > you think.
I don't have good solutions for the above resource limit problems. We designed OVN so that this kind of resource limit wouldn't be a problem in practice, so we didn't think through what would happen if the limits suddenly became more stringent. I think that it falls upon the CMS by default. > > > Assuming we pick a term to use to describe these out-of-cluster > > > switches, we should consider the impact of the rename. Renaming > > > internal symbols / functions is trivial. But "vtep" is used in OVN > > > schema (for example, for port binding 'type' attribute). Do we want to > > > rename those too? If so, what considerations should we apply when > > > doing it? Any guidance as to maintaining backwards compatibility? > > > > > > Also, is such a rename something that should happen at the same moment > > > when we add support for VXLAN for in-cluster communication? Or should > > > it be a separate work item? (If so, do we expect it to land before or > > > after the core VXLAN implementation lands?) > > > > We can't (or at any rate should not) change the terms in the schema, but > > we can change other places and point out to people in a few places that > > a "ramp switch" is sometimes, confusingly, called a "vtep". > > Gotcha. Any preferences as to whether to consider it a preparatory > work item; a follow-up; or a part of the VXLAN implementation? (I lean > towards handling the ramp term introduction as an independent > preparatory step.) I sent out a patch for people to look at. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
