On 12/16/24 10:47 AM, Felix Huettner wrote: > On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 10:42:55AM +0100, Dumitru Ceara wrote: >> On 12/16/24 10:41 AM, Felix Huettner wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 05:34:36PM +0100, Dumitru Ceara wrote: >>>> On 12/12/24 3:02 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> + "logical_port": {"type": {"key": >>>>>>>>>>> {"type": >>>>>>>>>>> "uuid", >>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>> "refTable": >>>>>>>>>>> "Port_Binding", >>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>> "refType": >>>>>>>>>>> "strong"}}}, >>>>>>>>>>> + "ip_prefix": {"type": "string"}, >>>>>>>>>>> + "tracked_port": {"type": {"key": >>>>>>>>>>> {"type": >>>>>>>>>>> "uuid", >>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>> "refTable": >>>>>>>>>>> "Port_Binding", >>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>> "refType": >>>>>>>>>>> "strong"}, >>>>>>>>>> Given that tracked_port is optional, wouldn't it be better >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> reference to be weak? Otherwise we run into the same issue >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> needing >>>>>>>>>> manual northd logic when removing Port_Binding referenced >>>>>>>>>> here. >>>>>>>>> The goal for the tracked_port is to specify the "nexthop" >>>>>>>>> Port_Binding >>>>>>>>> of a Route. If the Port_Binding would be removed then this >>>>>>>>> Route >>>>>>>>> is no >>>>>>>>> longer valid and needs to be removed anyway. So i think >>>>>>>>> because >>>>>>>>> this is >>>>>>>>> directly related we don't need to be weak. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I agree. >>>>>>>> >>>>>> I guess I misunderstood the docs for the "tracked_port", I thought >>>>>> that >>>>>> it would be optional even for the host routes. Is the intention >>>>>> that >>>>>> multiple chassis would advertise the same host route with different >>>>>> metrics based on this column? >>>>> Yes, at least for our usecase that would be the goal. >>>>> It allows us to always have backup paths already installed in the >>>>> network. >>>>> Also during the ovs/ovncon i had talks with multiple people that >>>>> would >>>>> want to do something similar. >>>>> >>>>> Theoretically we could then also use tracked_port for non-host routes >>>>> if >>>>> the nexthop is bound to a specific chassis. E.g. if you have a static >>>>> route pointing to a VM LSP (maybe a VPN gateway or so). Then the >>>>> fabric >>>>> might also be able to steer traffic better. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hmm, on this note. Shouldn't tracked_port be part of the index then? >>>> Otherwise we can't have multiple chassis advertising the same host route >>>> with different "tracked_port" values. >>> >>> Hi Dumitru, >>> >>> i did not think of it, but yes that makes sense. >>> >>>> >>>> Would this be ok as an incremental change? >>> >>> Looks good for me. >>> Should i send a v5 with this, or do you change it when applying the >>> patch? >>> >> >> No need for v5, I'll squash it in and push it soon. > > Thanks a lot >
Applied to main. Regards, Dumitru _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
