Hi Numan,

Thanks for reviewing the patch

On 30 Mar 2022, at 16:55, Numan Siddique 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

I think the "gateway_port" column can be a weak reference  to
"Logical_Router_Port".
Otherwise CMS cannot delete the logical router port unless it clears
this column or deletes the NAT row.

My bad. Will change this column to be a weak reference to LRP.


IMO, this column should be made optional.  If CMS doesn''t specify the
gateway port to use for a NAT entry,
ovn-northd can figure out which router port is reachable for the
"external_ip" of the NAT.
ovn-northd already does this for the Logical_Router_Static_Route's
output_port column.

Please check this out -
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_ovn-2Dorg_ovn_blob_main_northd_northd.c-23L9327&d=DwIFaQ&c=s883GpUCOChKOHiocYtGcg&r=RotwPXnAckhnfEzdWgnpPR0nnZ46Y0RYo-uUGaS4vXY&m=JI0ykaKcvbB2_KQ9SVReBzWtqdpVkyfUf4yA4lHeJW7p7AGEj0-UcEijs3jMkRpS&s=htB40Gb52UEOPhtBUlXqtMHZq12vpII3d-eHclbBqlM&e=

I'd suggest making this column optional.  What do you think ?

Got it. So, if we make this column optional, is this the behaviour
that we want?

If LR has a single DGP and “gateway_port” is not specified, we program
the NAT rule with the DGP even if "external_ip" of the rule is not in
the LRP networks.

If LR has multiple DGPs and "gateway_port" is not specified, we try
to determine which DGP is appropriate based on the LRP networks and
"external_ip" of the rule. If no DGP matches, we do not program the
NAT rule.

Is the current behaviour of ovn-nbctl ok?


There can be odd timing issues in CI.  So I'd suggest adding --wait=sb
or --wait=hv  in the  ovn-nbctl command just before AT_CHECK is
called.

There are many places in the test case you can do the same i..e use
--wait=sb/hv.

Can you please check and add this in the relevant places ?

Sure, will fix this.

Thanks,
Abhiram Sangana
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev

Reply via email to