On 6/7/24 15:26, [email protected] wrote:
> 
> 
> On 07/06/2024 14:20, Dumitru Ceara wrote:
>> On 6/7/24 12:24, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/06/2024 17:34, Dumitru Ceara wrote:
>>>> On 6/5/24 16:52, Brendan Doyle via dev wrote:
>>>>> So I'm wondering will this break the LSP option:
>>>>>>           *o**p**t**i**o**n**s*  *:*  *a**r**p**_**p**r**o**x**y*:
>>>>>> optional string
>>>>>>                  Optional.  A  list  of  MAC  and 
>>>>>> addresses/cidrs  or
>>>>>> just  ad‐
>>>>>>                  dresses/cidrs that this logical
>>>>>> switch*r**o**u**t**e**r*  port will reply to
>>>>>>                  ARP/NDP  requests.
>>>>>> Examples:*1**6**9**.**2**5**4**.**2**3**9**.**2**5**4*
>>>>>> *1**6**9**.**2**5**4**.**2**3**9**.**2*,
>>>>>>                 *0**a**:**5**8**:**a**9**:**f**e**:**0**1**:**0**1*
>>>>>> *1**6**9**.**2**5**4**.**2**3**9**.**2**5**4*
>>>>>> *1**6**9**.**2**5**4**.**2**3**9**.**2*
>>>>>>               
>>>>>> *1**6**9**.**2**5**4**.**2**3**8**.**0**/**2**4*,*f**d**7**b**:**6**b**4**d**:**7**b**2**5**:**d**2**2**f**:**:**1*
>>>>>>   *f**d**7**b**:**6**b**4**d**:**7**b**2**5**:**d**2**2**f**:**:**2*,
>>>>>>                  *0**a**:**5**8**:**a**9**:**f**e**:**0**1**:**0**1*
>>>>>> *f**d**7**b**:**6**b**4**d**:**7**b**2**5**:**d**2**2**f**:**:**0**/**6**4*.
>>>>>>   The*o**p**t**i**o**n**s**:**r**o**u**t**e**r**-*
>>>>>>                  *p**o**r**t*’s  logical  router  should  have a
>>>>>> route
>>>>>> to forward packets
>>>>>>                  sent to configured proxy ARP MAC/IPs to an
>>>>>> appropriate
>>>>>> destina‐
>>>>>>                  tion.
>>>> Hi Brendan,
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure I understand what breaks.  Do you have a specific scenario
>>>> in mind?  The patch is for the arp-proxy feature.  I doubt that people
>>>> rely on ARP requests originated by logical routers being handled by the
>>>> arp proxy on the connected logical switch port.  But I might be wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Dumitru
>>> The arp_proxy option allows an lsp prot connected to an LR to respond
>>> to ARP requests sent from say a VM connected to the same LS.
>>>
>> Right, we have a test for that:
>>
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/ovn-org/ovn/blob/main/tests/system-ovn.at*L10721-L10869__;Iw!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!K8qbDDzmm6Fz7yPm3lubG0kMbM_MmKQPqAW5ewepc1iqUAdif248P613_b0CNhmCXnEozbrwpIVCStm3Jg$
>>
>> And the patch doesn't change it, it just expands it.  Or am I missing
>> something?
> 
> No, I think we are good then just checking.
> 

Cool, thanks for that!

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

Reply via email to