Hi Greg, Please find the answers inline below.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:35 PM Gregory Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > Siva, > > You have a routing issue. > See interalia > https://github.com/OpenNebula/one/issues/2161 > > http://wwwaem.brocade.com/content/html/en/brocade-validated-design/brocade-vcs-fabric-ip-storage-bvd/GUID-CB5BFC4D-B2BE-4E9C-BA91-7E7E9BD35FCC.html > > http://blog.arunsriraman.com/2017/02/how-to-setting-up-gre-or-vxlan-tunnel.html > > For this to work you must be able to ping from the local IP to the remote > IP *through* the remote IP address.As we have seen that doesn't work. > Did you mean to be able to ping using remote interface? I am able to get this to work when I connect the two bridges using a veth pair. [root@vm1 ~]# ping 30.30.0.193 -I eth2 PING 30.30.0.193 (30.30.0.193) from 20.20.0.183 eth2: 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 30.30.0.193: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.655 ms 64 bytes from 30.30.0.193: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.574 ms 64 bytes from 30.30.0.193: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.600 ms 64 bytes from 30.30.0.193: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.604 ms 64 bytes from 30.30.0.193: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.607 ms 64 bytes from 30.30.0.193: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.620 ms 64 bytes from 30.30.0.193: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.466 ms 64 bytes from 30.30.0.193: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.623 ms ^C --- 30.30.0.193 ping statistics --- 8 packets transmitted, 8 received, 0% packet loss, time 7000ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.466/0.593/0.655/0.059 ms Even with this routing setup, the local_ip option with vxlan tunnels does not seem to work and GRE tunnels work. As an aside, why do you have two bridges to the same VMs? Your > configuration makes it impossible to > set a route because you have two sets of IP addresses and routes all on > two bridges going into the same > VMs. In that configuration the local ip option makes no sense. You > don't need it - you're already bridged. > I was to trying to mimic a use case with two hypervisors and each hypervisor is connected to two different underlay networks. So, used linux bridges when imitated the topology with VMs. Please advice if this is not the right approach. I understand that you have seen the gre configuration work and I'm not sure > why because it has the same > requirements for the local ip to be routable through the remote ip. And > again, there is no point to the > local ip option because the ip addresses do not need to be routed to reach > each other. > > In any case, I'm going to set up a valid configuration and then make sure > that the local ip option does work > or not. I'll report back when I'm done. > > I will look out for your conclusions. > Thanks, > > - Greg > > On 11/20/2018 10:13 AM, Gregory Rose wrote: > > > On 11/20/2018 10:03 AM, Siva Teja ARETI wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 12:59 PM Gregory Rose <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On 11/19/2018 6:30 PM, Siva Teja ARETI wrote: >> >> >> [user@hyp-1] ip route >> default via A.B.C.D dev enp5s0 proto static metric 100 >> 10.10.0.0/24 dev testbr0 proto kernel scope link src 10.10.0.1 >> linkdown >> 20.20.0.0/24 dev testbr1 proto kernel scope link src 20.20.0.1 >> 30.30.0.0/24 dev testbr2 proto kernel scope link src 30.30.0.1 >> >> Hi Siva, >> >> I'm curious about these bridges. Are they Linux bridges or OVS bridges? >> >> If they are Linux bridges please provide the output of 'brctl show'. >> If they are OVS bridges then please provide the output of 'ovs-vsctl >> show'. >> >> Thanks! >> >> - Greg >> > > Hi Greg, > > These are linux bridges. > > [user@hyp1 ] brctl show > bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces > docker0 8000.02428928dba5 no veth6079ee7 > testbr0 8000.000000000000 yes > testbr1 8000.fe540005937c yes vnet2 > vnet5 > testbr2 8000.fe540079ef92 yes vnet1 > vnet4 > virbr0 8000.fe54000ad370 yes vnet0 > vnet3 > > Siva Teja. > > > Thanks Siva! I'll follow up when I have more questions and/or results. > > - Greg > > >
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
