Eelco Chaudron writes:
> On 25 Mar 2024, at 13:37, Ilya Maximets wrote:
>
>> On 3/25/24 13:22, Aaron Conole wrote:
>>> Eelco Chaudron writes:
>>>
On 22 Mar 2024, at 20:06, Aaron Conole wrote:
> Open vSwitch is originally intended to switch at layer 2, only dealing
> with
On 25 Mar 2024, at 13:37, Ilya Maximets wrote:
> On 3/25/24 13:22, Aaron Conole wrote:
>> Eelco Chaudron writes:
>>
>>> On 22 Mar 2024, at 20:06, Aaron Conole wrote:
>>>
Open vSwitch is originally intended to switch at layer 2, only dealing with
Ethernet frames. With the
On 3/25/24 13:22, Aaron Conole wrote:
> Eelco Chaudron writes:
>
>> On 22 Mar 2024, at 20:06, Aaron Conole wrote:
>>
>>> Open vSwitch is originally intended to switch at layer 2, only dealing with
>>> Ethernet frames. With the introduction of l3 tunnels support, it crossed
>>> into the realm of
Eelco Chaudron writes:
> On 22 Mar 2024, at 20:06, Aaron Conole wrote:
>
>> Open vSwitch is originally intended to switch at layer 2, only dealing with
>> Ethernet frames. With the introduction of l3 tunnels support, it crossed
>> into the realm of needing to care a bit about some routing
On 22 Mar 2024, at 20:06, Aaron Conole wrote:
> Open vSwitch is originally intended to switch at layer 2, only dealing with
> Ethernet frames. With the introduction of l3 tunnels support, it crossed
> into the realm of needing to care a bit about some routing details when
> making forwarding
Open vSwitch is originally intended to switch at layer 2, only dealing with
Ethernet frames. With the introduction of l3 tunnels support, it crossed
into the realm of needing to care a bit about some routing details when
making forwarding decisions. If an oversized packet would need to be
