On 11/6/16, 9:26 AM, "[email protected] on behalf of Raymond
Burkholder" <[email protected] on behalf of
[email protected]> wrote:
> On Friday, November 4, 2016 12:59:57 PM AST Raymond Burkholder wrote:
> > I am following the tutorial at
> >
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blog.spinhirne.com_2016_09_an-2Dintroduction-2Dto-2Dovn-2Drouting.html&d=CwICAg&c=Sqcl0Ez6M0X8aeM67LKIiDJAXVeAw-YihVMNtXt-uEs&r=dGZmbKhBG9tJHY4odedsGA&m=aRYnvT5_vXOGkS8G5u2cu3KUF-GGzD-dd7uV0x9a5C4&s=_V4RRWSm3xXZdmz41XxZV6hETUOiSKrkNRDsibbFuTI&e=
> >
> > I have implemented tenant1, dmz, inside, vm1, and vm2.
> >
> > Vm1 can ping vm2.
> >
> > ===========
> > But shouldn't vm1 and vm2 be able to successfully ping the tenant1
> gateway
> > (tenant1-dmz) of 172.16.255.129?
> > ===========
>
> basic topology: vm1(172.16.255.131/26) -> sw1 -> r1(172.16.255.129/26)
It is the little details that count:
Lsp and lrp which are patched together have to have the same mac address.
IMO, that is a user interface bug. The behavior could be changed such that the
lsp inherits the MAC from the lrp,
for this case.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mail.openvswitch.org_mailman_listinfo_ovs-2Ddiscuss&d=CwICAg&c=Sqcl0Ez6M0X8aeM67LKIiDJAXVeAw-YihVMNtXt-uEs&r=dGZmbKhBG9tJHY4odedsGA&m=aRYnvT5_vXOGkS8G5u2cu3KUF-GGzD-dd7uV0x9a5C4&s=irOLCgCCQzbB3krCao05eWJ69qEZYpnPKJT9GoSXH0Y&e=
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
