On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 08:56:42AM -0800, Han Zhou wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:15 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 11:33:11AM +0100, Daniel Alvarez Sanchez wrote:
> > > @Han, I can try rebase the patch if you want but that was
> > > basically renaming the Address_Set table and from Ben's
> > > comment, it may be better to keep the name. Not sure,
> > > however, how we can proceed to address Lucas' points in
> > > this thread.
> > I wouldn't rename the table. It sounds like the priority should be to
> > add support for sets of port names. I thought that there was already a
> > patch for that to be rebased, but maybe I misunderstood.
> I feel it is better to add a new table for port group explicitly, and the
> column type can be a set of weak reference to Logical_Switch_Port.
> The benefits are:
> - Better data integrity: deleting a lport automatically deletes from the
> port group
> - No confusion about the type of records in a single table
> - Existing Address_Set mechanism will continue to be supported without any
> - Furthermore, the race condition issue brought up by Lucas can be solved
> by supporting port-group in IP address match condition in ovn-controller,
> so that all addresses in the lports are used just like how AddressSet is
> used today. And there is no need for Neutron networking-ovn to use
> AddressSet any more. Since addresses are deduced from lports, the ordering
> of deleting/adding doesn't matter any more.
> How does this sound?
Will we want sets of Logical_Router_Ports later?
discuss mailing list