On 12/23/15, 1:34 PM, "dev on behalf of Guru Shetty"
wrote:
>Hello All,
> I just looked at the OVN workflow for implementing VTEP schema (L2 only)
>and at first glance it feels wrong. There is possibly a reason for the way
>it has been implemented, but this is how I see it.
>
>The current w
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 02:00:33PM -0800, Guru Shetty wrote:
> On 23 December 2015 at 13:40, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 01:34:32PM -0800, Guru Shetty wrote:
> > > I just looked at the OVN workflow for implementing VTEP schema (L2 only)
> > > and at first glance it feels wrong
On 23 December 2015 at 13:40, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 01:34:32PM -0800, Guru Shetty wrote:
> > I just looked at the OVN workflow for implementing VTEP schema (L2 only)
> > and at first glance it feels wrong. There is possibly a reason for the
> way
> > it has been implemented,
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 01:34:32PM -0800, Guru Shetty wrote:
> I just looked at the OVN workflow for implementing VTEP schema (L2 only)
> and at first glance it feels wrong. There is possibly a reason for the way
> it has been implemented, but this is how I see it.
>
> The current workflow (from
Hello All,
I just looked at the OVN workflow for implementing VTEP schema (L2 only)
and at first glance it feels wrong. There is possibly a reason for the way
it has been implemented, but this is how I see it.
The current workflow (from a test case in ovn-controller-vtep.at):
1. In the VTEP GW d
