On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 02:36:00PM +0100, Daniel Alvarez Sanchez wrote: > Thanks a lot for your answer, Ben. > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 9:21 PM Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 04:01:22PM +0100, Daniel Alvarez Sanchez wrote: > > > As a possible alternative, we could support multiple localnet ports on > > the > > > same Logical Switch. In the first place, we can assume that on a > > particular > > > hypervisor, we're not going to have ports bound to multiple segments (ie. > > > on hv1 only ports on segment1 will be present, on hv2 only ports on > > > segment2 will be present and so on...). This way, ovn-controller can > > create > > > the patch-port to the provider bridge based on the local bridge-mappings > > > configuration on each hypervisor and the rest of the localnet ports will > > > have no effect. > > > > I don't see a big problem with this. > > > > If you implement it, be sure to update the documentation, since there > > are multiple places that talk about LSes with localnet ports having only > > two LSPs total. > > > > Right, I noticed this and it's a great point. > > I drew this little diagram [0] to show graphically the idea behind my > suggestion. > The idea is not to have multiple mappings for the same LS on a given > hypervisor as that'd make things trickier I believe. In the diagram, we > would not expect to have hv1 having both 'segment1:br-ex, segment2:br-ex2'. > As long as CMS ensures that only one localnet port is 'active' on a single > hv, I believe it should not be much trouble but perhaps I'm too optimistic > :) > > [0] https://imgur.com/a/0Tt9nvI
This diagram matches what I was thinking. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
