On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 08:31:44AM -0500, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:51 AM Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 10:35:01PM -0500, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > > > It's a legal setup where tunnel ports with the same config are created > > > on different bridges served by Open vSwitch. Specifically, multiple > > > OVN controllers may emulate multiple chassis running on the same > > > physical host, in which case they may need to create separate tunnel > > > ports to connect to the same remote chassis on their respective > > > bridges. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ihar Hrachyshka <[email protected]> > > > > That makes sense for sending packets, but which one is supposed to > > receive a packet when one arrives for that tunnel? > > > > If we are talking in OVN context, each virtual ovn-controller chassis > on the same host has to have a different IP / port to distinguish > between chassis. I don't think it's a useful configuration to have two > two incoming tunnel ports with the same config for the same IP that > are not served by separate DST IP addresses.
I think that this code rejects tunnel ports with exactly the same configuration, though. If the two ports were configured with different local IP addresses, then this code would not flag a conflict. Do I misunderstand? _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
