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 > change > - 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 disc...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
