e
network-scripts package is deprecated and not installed by default on
CentOS 8, and will be removed in CentOS 9.
--
Dan Sneddon | Senior Principal Software Engineer
dsned...@redhat.com | redhat.com/cloud
dsneddon:irc| @dxs:twitter
On 3/31/21 9:12 PM, duluxoz wrote:
Hi G
case was support on Red Hat Enterprise
Linux, which will be adding FRR to the supported packages shortly.
I'm curious to hear any input that anyone has on FRR compared with GoBGP
and other daemons. Please feel free to respond on-list if it involves
OVS, or off-list if not. Thanks.
--
Dan
for the bridge and
TYPE=OVSDPDKBond for the bond interface configuration file.
--
Dan Sneddon | Senior Principal Software Engineer
dsned...@redhat.com | redhat.com/cloud
dsneddon:irc| @dxs:twitter
___
discuss mailing list
disc
(192.168.5.187): icmp_seq=18 ttl=64 time=0.428 ms
> 64 bytes from ubuntu0 (192.168.5.187): icmp_seq=19 ttl=64 time=1.08 ms
> ```
>
> Could someone give me some hint where to start to debug or where is the
> issue?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
not meet your needs.
--
Dan Sneddon | Senior Principal Software Engineer
dsned...@redhat.com | redhat.com/cloud
dsneddon:irc| @dxs:twitter
On 9/9/20 8:18 AM, Jordan Sandri wrote:
> Hi!
> I have 2 raspberry pis with an OVS bridge on each of them. I would like to
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/7/html/networking_guide/ch-configure_network_teaming
--
Dan Sneddon
___
discuss mailing list
disc...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
Is this a case of confusion between the switch named br0 and an internal
port on the switch named br0? I have found that many people are confused
about that distinction, especially since ovs-vsctl will create the internal
port automatically with the same name as the bridge.
Shutting down the
re footprint.
When I discovered that there was no way to prevent tunnels from being
formed between all chassis, that became an obvious problem for edge
scenarios. To me that is the more pressing issue, which dynamic tunnels
would solve. However, the abi
o other chassis in
the same TZ, and also forms tunnels with nodes at the central site, but
doesn't form tunnels with chassis in other specific TZs. In this
alternative, a chassis without a TZ forms tunnels with all other chassis. A
chassis with a specific TZ forms tunnels within that TZ and with chassis
with no TZ specified. That allows network functions such as gateways to be
centralized for all TZs.
Perhaps an ideal solution would allow a chassis to be a member of more than
one TZ? That would allow flexibility, but may be more difficult to
implement.
--
Dan Sneddon
___
discuss mailing list
disc...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
