On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:12 AM, Darrell Ball <db...@vmware.com> wrote:
> > > > > *From: *Hui Xiang <xiangh...@gmail.com> > *Date: *Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 3:18 AM > *To: *Darrell Ball <db...@vmware.com> > *Cc: *"ovs-discuss@openvswitch.org" <ovs-discuss@openvswitch.org> > *Subject: *Re: [ovs-discuss] OVS-DPDK IP fragmentation require > > > > > > Blow is the diagram (using OVS-DPDK): > > > > 1. For packets coming to vm1 from internet where could have MTU 1500, > there could be including some fragmented packets, > > how does the ALC/Security groups handle these fragmented packets? do > nothing and pass it next which may pass the packets > > should be dropped or any special handling? > > > > Lets assume the fragments get thru. the physical switch and/or firewall. > > > > Are you using DPDK in GW and using OVS kernel datapath in br-int where you > apply ACL/Security groups policy ? > All are using DPDK, the ACL/Security groups policy said is OVS-DPDK conntrack implementation. With the case that we should have dropped some packets by creating special security group rules, but now due to they are fragmented and get thru by default, this is not what is expected. > > > 2. For packets egress from vm1, if all internal physical switch support > Jumbo Frame, that's fine, but if there are some physical swithes > > just support 1500/2000 MTU, then fragmented packets generated again. > The ACL/Security groups face problem as item 1 as well. > > > > > > For packets that reach the physical switches on the way out, then the > decision how to handle them is at the physical switch/router > > The packets may be fragmented at this point; depending on the switch; > there will be HW firewall policies to contend with, so depends. > > > Here, again what I mean is the packets are fragmented by the physical switch/router, and they are switching/routing to a next node where has the OVS-DPDK set with security group, and OVS-DPDK may let them thru with ignoring the security group rules. > > > > > [image: nline image 1] > > > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Darrell Ball <db...@vmware.com> wrote: > > > > > > *From: *Hui Xiang <xiangh...@gmail.com> > *Date: *Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 9:43 PM > *To: *Darrell Ball <db...@vmware.com> > *Cc: *"ovs-discuss@openvswitch.org" <ovs-discuss@openvswitch.org> > *Subject: *Re: [ovs-discuss] OVS-DPDK IP fragmentation require > > > > Thanks Darrell, comment inline. > > > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Darrell Ball <db...@vmware.com> wrote: > > > > > > *From: *<ovs-discuss-boun...@openvswitch.org> on behalf of Hui Xiang < > xiangh...@gmail.com> > *Date: *Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 7:47 PM > *To: *"ovs-discuss@openvswitch.org" <ovs-discuss@openvswitch.org> > *Subject: *[ovs-discuss] OVS-DPDK IP fragmentation require > > > > Hi guys, > > > > Seems OVS-DPDK still missing IP fragmentation support, is there any > schedule to have it? > > OVS 2.9 > > I'm transferring to use OVN, but for those nodes which have external > network connection, they may face this problem, > > except to configure Jumbo frames, is there any other workaround? > > > > I am not clear on the situation however. > > You mention about configuring jumbo frames which means you can avoid the > fragments by doing this ? > > No, I can't guarantee that, only can do it inside OpenStack, it is > limited. > > If this is true, then this is the best way to proceed since performance > will be better. > > What is wrong with jumbo frames ? > > It's good but it's limited can't be guaranteed, so I am asking is there > any other way without IP fragmentation so far. > > > > It sounds like you want to avoid IP fragmentation; so far so good. > > I am not sure I understand the whole picture though. > > Maybe you can describe what you see ?; maybe a simple diagram would help ? > > > > > > BR. > > Hui. > > > > >
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list disc...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
