I have attached a sketch of the topology.

I send 14 packets from Source(10.0.0.1), I receive 14 at Sink.(10.0.0.2)

I also see 14 packets hitting the rule at OVS(drop rule at 10.0.0.3)
 cookie=0x0, duration=123.175s, table=0, *n_packets=14*, n_bytes=60,
idle_age=2, priority=1111*,udp,nw_src=10.0.0.1,nw_dst=10.0.0.2*
*actions=drop*

And I can say with confidence that there are no other UDP packets in the
system.

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Darrell Ball <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From: *Advith Nagappa <[email protected]>
> *Date: *Friday, March 31, 2017 at 1:14 PM
> *To: *Darrell Ball <[email protected]>
> *Cc: *discuss <[email protected]>
> *Subject: *Re: [ovs-discuss] SR-IOV with Open vSwitch
>
>
>
> Darrell,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the resources and the response.
>
>
>
> I am not using a Linux bridge at host. Just SR-IOV to pass through the
> hypervisor.
>
>
>
> My guess here is that the although the three guests are assigned one
> virtual functions(VF) each, since all three VFs are sliced out of the same
> underlying Physical function (and this they are.), the rules at the OVS are
> somehow overridden. I don't know if this guess is anywhere close to being
> accurate..
>
>
>
> The overriding hypothesis seems unlikely, at least by what I understand by
> the term.
>
> It would be helpful to have a diagram of packet sourcing and sinking; i.e.
> where are the packets sent from and
>
> where is the counting of the received ones - “but the packet is not
> dropped:”
>
>
>
> Also, are the “received packets” the UDP packets you are tracking or some
> other ones.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 31, 2017 01:16, "Darrell Ball" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<[email protected]> on behalf of Advith Nagappa
> <[email protected]>
> *Date: *Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 9:39 PM
> *To: *discuss <[email protected]>
> *Subject: *[ovs-discuss] SR-IOV with Open vSwitch
>
>
>
> Hello All,
>
>
>
>
>
> Has anyone used SR-IOV with Open vSwitch(in a guest)?
>
>
>
> My understanding is that SR-IOV is hypervisor(host) by/pass, Hence using
> OVS at that level would not make sense..
>
>
>
> So I tried deploying OVS in an SR-IOV enabled guest, and here is what I
> observed..
>
>
>
> I have one virtual function within my guest, called ens7.
>
>
>
> I have added that to by OVS-bridge..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> d5f266fc-a6f1-448e-91c5-e6db8748f73f
>
>     Bridge "br0"
>
>         Port "*ens7*"
>
>             Interface "ens7"
>
>         Port "br0"
>
>             Interface "br0"
>
>                 type: internal
>
>
>
> I also, added the following rule:
>
>
>
> ovs-ofctl add-flow br0  priority=1111,dl_type=0x0800*,nw_proto=17*
> ,nw_src=10.0.0.1,nw_dst=10.0.0.2,actions=
>
>
>
>
>
> However every time I send a UDP datagram, I see that this rule is hit!,
> but the packet is not dropped:
>
>
>
>  cookie=0x0, duration=123.175s, table=0, *n_packets=14*, n_bytes=60,
> idle_age=2, priority=1111*,udp,nw_src=10.0.0.1,nw_dst=10.0.0.2*
> *actions=drop*
>
>
>
> The thing here is 10.0.0.1 and 10.0.0.2 share a physical function,.. and,
> despite the rule hit, the datagram is forwarded, I wonder what may be
> causing this? I am guessing some kind of L2 switching at the NIC level,
> which overrides OVS? Does anyone have an experience with this..
>
>
>
>
>
> You are running OVS in the VM(s), not the host.
>
> I assume you are sending packets in one direction only and are constantly
> hitting an L2 broadcast case in the Linux bridge in the host
>
> (this is also an assumption, since you don’t delineate all your config.
> and topology).
>
> So, I guess one copy of the packet is bypassing OVS in the VM and another
> copy is sent to OVS in the VM to be dropped.
>
>
>
> Below link has more information and child links from there.
>
>
>
> https://github.com/intel/SDN-NFV-Hands-on-Samples/blob/
> master/SR-IOV_DPDK_Hands-on_Lab/docs/SR-IOV-HandsOn-IEEE.pdf
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_intel_SDN-2DNFV-2DHands-2Don-2DSamples_blob_master_SR-2DIOV-5FDPDK-5FHands-2Don-5FLab_docs_SR-2DIOV-2DHandsOn-2DIEEE.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=uilaK90D4TOVoH58JNXRgQ&r=BVhFA09CGX7JQ5Ih-uZnsw&m=YxFaqFip6Yx8m_S1rRQJOt69mM8X50oOAA7F1TpEwNc&s=utBGEpRDhujM_F5GBaXHebC6S9K9UA0kf-o18GeeV8M&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Best Regards
>
> Advith Nagappa
>
>

Attachment: Topology.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss

Reply via email to