Hi Peng,
Did the changes got merged ?
Thanks,
Hemanth
From: Peng He
Sent: 09 May 2022 09:09
To: Hemanth Aramadaka
Cc: Sriharsha Basavapatna via dev ; Ilya Maximets
Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] flow: Consistent VXLAN UDP src ports for
fragmented packets
sorry, ack name is
On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 6:38 AM Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
>
> When multiple chassis are set in requested-chassis, port binding is
> configured in multiple cluster locations. In case of live migration
> scenario, only one of the locations run a workload at a particular
> point in time. Yet, it's
From: Numan Siddique
ovn-northd will now make use of the newly added OVN actions -
check_in_port_sec and check_out_port_sec to implement the
port security for the logical ports.
Port security rules remain the same and nothing changes from
CMS's perspective.
Scale results:
Use a Northbound
From: Numan Siddique
The action - check_in_port_sec runs the port security checks for the
incoming packet from the logical port (inport) and stores the result in a
destination register bit. If the port security fails, 1 is stored
in the destination register bit.
The action - check_out_port_sec
From: Numan Siddique
ovn-controller will now generate OF rules for in port security and
out port security checks in OF tables - 73, 74 and 75. These flows
will be added if a port binding has port security defined in the
Port_Binding.Port_Security column which is newly added in this patch.
The
From: Numan Siddique
This patch series adds generic logical flows for port security in
the logical switch pipeline and pushes the actual port security
implementation logic to ovn-controller from ovn-northd.
ovn-northd will now add logical flows like:
table=0 (ls_in_check_port_sec), priority=50
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 9:32 AM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
>
> On 5/12/22 10:58, Dumitru Ceara wrote:
> > On 5/3/22 21:37, Han Zhou wrote:
> >> During the process of claiming a VIF port on a chassis, there are
> >> multiple SB and local OVSDB updates by ovn-controller, which may
trigger
> >>
On 5/12/22 10:58, Dumitru Ceara wrote:
> On 5/3/22 21:37, Han Zhou wrote:
>> During the process of claiming a VIF port on a chassis, there are
>> multiple SB and local OVSDB updates by ovn-controller, which may trigger
>> ovn-controller recompute, depending on the timing between the completion
>>
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 8:55 AM Aaron Conole wrote:
>
> Ben Pfaff writes:
>
> > Hi Aaron! This will move the following fields from the L4 segment to
> > the L3 segment:
> >
> > struct in6_addr nd_target; /* IPv6 neighbor discovery (ND) target. */
> > struct eth_addr arp_sha;/*
Thanks Xavier for clarifying.
Hi Mark,
Xavier’s explanation is bang on. The ‘up’ field is introduced in the Port
Binding table post 20.09.
So, when the southbound is at 20.09 version, the set operation fails in
ovn-controller.
Thanks
Mary
From: Xavier Simonart
Date: Wednesday, May 11, 2022
Ben Pfaff writes:
> Hi Aaron! This will move the following fields from the L4 segment to
> the L3 segment:
>
> struct in6_addr nd_target; /* IPv6 neighbor discovery (ND) target. */
> struct eth_addr arp_sha;/* ARP/ND source hardware address. */
> struct eth_addr arp_tha;/*
On 11/05/2022 15:25, mit...@outlook.com wrote:
From: linhuang
The ALB parameters should never be negative.
So it's to use unsigned smap_get versions to get it properly.
Thanks Lin, one comment below.
Fixes: 5bf84282482a ("Adding support for PMD auto load balancing")
Signed-off-by: Lin
On 04/05/2022 14:59, David Marchand wrote:
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 3:24 PM Kevin Traynor
wrote:
Shared memory mempools may be currently be shared between DPDK
ports based on port MTU and NUMA. With some hint from the user we
can increase the sharing on MTU and hence reduce memory
Shared memory mempools may be currently be shared between DPDK
ports based on port MTU and NUMA. With some hint from the user
we can increase the sharing on MTU and hence reduce memory
consumption in many cases.
For example, a port with MTU 9000, uses a mempool with an
mbuf size based on 9000
This patchset optimizes for two cases when using shared mempools.
If there are ports with different MTUs, that usually leads
to multiple shared mempools being created because mempool
mbuf size and hence creation is based from MTU.
In fact, a port with a smaller MTU could share a mempool with
On 5/3/22 21:09, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> Do not group lflows if the corresponding datapath does not run
> copp meters and the previous one has an associated copp entry.
> In order to fix the issue reset lflow_ref pointer to NULL if the logical
> router/logical flow runs a copp meter.
>
>
On 4/29/22 18:31, Xavier Simonart wrote:
> This patch is intended to change the way to enable northd lflow build
> parallelization, as well as enable runtime change of number of threads.
> Before this patch, the following was needed to use parallelization:
> - enable parallelization through
On Thu 12 May 2022 at 12:19, Eelco Chaudron wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2022, at 12:22, Ilya Maximets wrote:
>
>> On 4/7/22 10:02, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>>> On Mon 14 Mar 2022 at 20:40, Ilya Maximets wrote:
On 3/14/22 19:33, Roi Dayan wrote:
>
>
> On 2022-03-10 8:44 PM, Aaron Conole wrote:
On 7 Apr 2022, at 12:22, Ilya Maximets wrote:
> On 4/7/22 10:02, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> On Mon 14 Mar 2022 at 20:40, Ilya Maximets wrote:
>>> On 3/14/22 19:33, Roi Dayan wrote:
On 2022-03-10 8:44 PM, Aaron Conole wrote:
> Ilya Maximets writes:
>
>> Few years ago OVS
- Multiple "ovn-controller" tests
- I-P handle northd_internal_version change
- 2 HVs, 1 lport/HV, localport ports
- 1 LR with distributed router gateway port
- send gratuitous arp for NAT rules on distributed router
- send gratuitous arp on localnet
- 4 HV, 3 LS, 2 LR, packet test with HA
On 11 May 2022, at 18:28, Kumar Amber wrote:
> The mfex pcap generation script is improved for varied length
> traffic and also removes the hard coded mfex_pcap and instead uses
> the script itself to generate complex traffic patterns for testing.
I did not follow the discussion around the
Hi Han
I think that I agree: both patches are somehow orthogonal, even though they
got initiated by the same issue.
I just submitted the patch preventing recomputes due to Port_Binding.
Thanks
Xavier
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 11:00 AM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
> Hi Han, Mark, Xavier,
>
> On 5/10/22
When VIF ports are claimed on a chassis, SBDB Port_Binding table is updated.
If the SBDB IDL is still is read-only ("in transaction") when such a update
is required, the update is not possible and recompute is triggered through
I+P failure.
This situation can happen:
- after updating
Hi Han, Mark, Xavier,
On 5/10/22 03:52, Han Zhou wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 5:36 PM Xavier Simonart wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mark, Han
>>
>> Thanks for looking into this.
>> Han's patch is addressing the issues I initially tried fixing with
>
On 5/3/22 21:37, Han Zhou wrote:
> During the process of claiming a VIF port on a chassis, there are
> multiple SB and local OVSDB updates by ovn-controller, which may trigger
> ovn-controller recompute, depending on the timing between the completion
> of SB and local OVSDB updates:
>
> After
On 11 May 2022, at 18:53, Amber, Kumar wrote:
> Hi Eelco,
>
> Thanks for pointing out, I have updated a patch with the fix for the two
> problems you were witnessing.
> The patch also contains improvements to the MFEX testing as well like
> reducing the packet generation time,
> Script
26 matches
Mail list logo
