On 8/8/24 15:37, [email protected] wrote: > Thank you for the confirmation. > > As for the context of the current "experimental" implementation. Would > you say that it's OK if we then redirect all LRP IP's (as currently > proposed) and properly document that this feature causes traffic to all > LRP IPs to be redirected. Therefore it's incompatible with, for > example, creating load balancer on LRP with port 179? >
It's actually incompatible with any load balancer to be created that has VIP=<any LRP IP>. Same for NATs. What if we combine it with a filter like Vladislav suggested? But not match on any IPs explicitly. Then the user could just configure multiple IPs (e.g., IP1, IP2) on the LRP and decide which of them should be redirected by adding a filter on "ip.dest == IP2" (for example). That would allow you to: a. redirect all traffic (no filter or filter == "1") b. redirect traffic for select IPs (filter == "ip.dest == X") c. do more complex things (responsibility of the user if things break?) What do you think? > Martin. > > On Thu, 2024-08-08 at 15:29 +0200, Dumitru Ceara wrote: >> On 8/8/24 14:42, Dumitru Ceara wrote: >>>> Would it be useful to redirect only traffic for LRP's IPv6 LLA? >>>> @Vladislav, in your setups, do you use ipv4 or ipv6 LLAs for >>>> setting up >>>> BGP peering? >>>> >>> I'll let Vladislav comment on this. I do think IPv4 might be a >>> requirement on the long term for us downstream though. >> >> An addendum here, I meant non-LLA IPv4 (globally routable but maybe >> also >> private). >> > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
