On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Numan Siddique wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 11:06 PM, Mickey Spiegel
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 6:04 AM, wrote:
> >
> >> From: Numan Siddique
> >>
> >> Having zone id per datapath is more than sufficient, because the
> >> CT tuple i
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 11:06 PM, Mickey Spiegel
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 6:04 AM, wrote:
>
>> From: Numan Siddique
>>
>> Having zone id per datapath is more than sufficient, because the
>> CT tuple information will be unique anyway with in the logical
>> datapath.
>>
>
> This pr
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 6:04 AM, wrote:
> From: Numan Siddique
>
> Having zone id per datapath is more than sufficient, because the
> CT tuple information will be unique anyway with in the logical
> datapath.
>
This proposal conflicts with another proposal that is currently in flight (
https://
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 9:04 AM, wrote:
> From: Numan Siddique
>
> Having zone id per datapath is more than sufficient, because the
> CT tuple information will be unique anyway with in the logical
> datapath.
>
> In our testing we have observed that, the packet between two ports of
> a datapath
From: Numan Siddique
Having zone id per datapath is more than sufficient, because the
CT tuple information will be unique anyway with in the logical
datapath.
In our testing we have observed that, the packet between two ports of
a datapath within the same chassis is sent to the CT twice (both in