[ovs-dev] OVN L3-HA request for feedback

[Russell Bryant]

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 5:12 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo
<majopela at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Russell Bryant <russell at ovn.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo
>> <majopela at redhat.com> wrote:
>> > I wanted to share a small status update:
>> >
>> > Anil and I have been working on this [1] and we expect to post
>> > some preliminary  patches before the end of the week.
>> >
>> > I can confirm that the BFD + bundle(active_backup) strategy
>> > works well from the hypervisors point of view. With 1 sec BFD
>> > pings we get a ~2.8s failover time.
>> >
>> > So far we have only focused on case "2" so far for the distributed
>> > routers where we specify a set of hosts to act as chassis.
>> >
>> > """
>> >      ovn-nbctl lrp-add R1 alice 00:00:02:01:02:03 172.16.1.1/24 \
>> >                   -- set Logical_Router_Port alice \
>> >                   options:redirect-chassis=gw1:10,gw2:20,gw3:30
>> > """
>> >
>>
>> Thanks for the update!  Sounds like great progress.
>>
>> > We wonder if there's any value at all in exploring support on "1"
>> > the old way of pinning a logical router to a chassis.
>>
>> You mean only specifying a single chassis here?  Does it add a lot of
>> complexity to only support a single gateway?
>
>
> I don't know yet, I need to look at that specific case.
>
>>
>> If not, it definitely
>> seems worth keeping.  Supporting simpler setups is a good thing.
>
>
> Ignorant question, setting the chassis option on the Logical Router,
> doesn't make the router "less distributed", i.e. making the E/W traffic flow
> through the specific chassis?. This is basically why I didn't pay attention
> to it, but if it's not the case, of course, it's worth working on it.

Setting the chassis only centralizes NAT processing, not east/west
routing without NAT.

-- 
Russell Bryant