On 2/26/25 4:45 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: > On 2/26/25 16:30, Felix Huettner wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 03:44:52PM +0100, Ilya Maximets wrote: >>> A peer of a switch can be another switch, so the port type has to be >>> checked. The missing check doesn't seem to lead to crashes, but it >>> leads to addresses of switch-switch ports not being advertised. >>> >>> Fix that by checking the port type instead of assuming. >>> >>> The issue is a result of two features being developed at the same time >>> and the code not being re-checked before merging the routing patches. >> >> Thanks a lot, thats a nice one. >> >> Acked-by: Felix Huettner <felix.huettner@stackit.cloud> > > BTW, this code also advertises addresses of remote ports in case of > interconnect, IIUC. Is that supposed to be happening? Or should > we not advertise them, as they are not local to the AZ? >
In my opinion that's fine. They are reachable and therefore routes for them can be advertised. We could maybe extend the 'tracked_port' support to transit switch ports so that we advertise the routes for these IPs with higher preference on the chassis/AZ where they reside. What do you think Felix? > Best regards, Ilya Maximets. > Thanks, Dumitru _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
