On 7/15/21 3:54 PM, Mark Gray wrote: > On 15/07/2021 14:16, Mark Michelson wrote: >> Hi Mark,
Hi Mark, Mark, >> >> I'm a bit curious about this change. Does the removal of the protocol >> from the match mean that traffic that is not of the protocol specified >> in the load balancer will be ct_dnat()'ed? Does that constitute >> unexpected behavior? >> > > Yes, this is the case. It's a tradeoff between number of flows and > reirculations but thinking about it again, it may be better to have more > flows. I will create a v2. > Unless we match on proto *and* L4 port I don't think it's worth adding per proto flows. Assuming a TCP load balancer, all TCP traffic with destination VIP will still be ct_dnat()'ed, even if the TCP destination port is not the one defined in the load balancer VIP. On the other hand, using the same VIP for multiple ports is probably a common use case so if we add the L4 port to the match the number of logical flows might increase significantly. Regards, Dumitru _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
