On 2/26/25 1:44 PM, martin.kal...@canonical.com wrote: > On Wed, 2025-02-26 at 13:02 +0100, Dumitru Ceara wrote: >> Hi MJ, >> > Hi MJ and Dumitru, > >> +Numan (original author of ovn-fake-multinode) >> >> On 2/25/25 7:43 PM, MJ Ponsonby wrote: >>> This is being posted as a RFC. I have a number of concerns with >>> this >>> test: >>> - This test requires two nodes not using ovn, one of them cannot be >>> a >>> fake vm as it needs to be able to run frr to act as a BGP peer >>> using >>> an external daemon, which was an important part of this test. >> >> Do you mean: >> - ovn-gw-2 will run the FRR instance that's behind an OVN port >> AND >> - ovn-gw-3 is removed from the OVN underlay (I see you remove its >> interface from br-ex) and will run the "external" FRR instance >> >> ? >> >> If that's the case, can't we start the "external" FRR instance in a >> network namespace that plug into the br-ovn-ext bridge (OVN_EXT_BR)? > > That's my understanding of the topology too. I agree that it would be > cleaner to have "dedicated" "external vm", rather than re-purposing one > of the GW chassis. > > It seems to me that it would be relatively easy to introduce new class > of "VMs", in the ovn-fake-multinode's 'ovn_cluster.sh', that would > represent "external host". There are currently chassis/gw/central/relay > "VMs" that are controlled by > CHASSIS_COUNT/GW_COUNT/CENTRAL_COUNT/RELAY_COUNT variables. In the same > vein, there could be "EXTERNAL_COUNT" that would spawn N podman > containers plugged 'br-ovn-ext' bridge on host. > Such external VM's would probably find usage in other tests too. > Whenever an connectivity from external network to OVN needs to be > tested. >
Well my suggestion was to use the br-ovn-ext bridge ovn-fake-multinode already configures for exactly this use case: testing connectivity from an external entity to OVN. Regards, Dumitru > Best regards, > Martin. > >> >>> - Currently frr is not one of the packages installed on the >>> ovn-fake-multinode nodes, I am posting a PR to ovn-fake-multinode >>> to >>> address this however. >>> >> >> That's fine in my opinion. We need to figure out how to do this >> properly though. In CI we run ovn-fake-multinode v0.2. Maybe we >> should >> tag a new v0.3 version once frr is added and update our CI tests to >> be >> compatible with that new version. >> >>> Looking forward to responses regarding this, >>> Thanks. >>> >>> MJ Ponsonby (1): >>> Multinode BGP unnumbered test for ovn >>> >>> tests/multinode.at | 148 >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 148 insertions(+) >>> >> >> Thanks, >> Dumitru >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dev mailing list >> d...@openvswitch.org >> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
