[ovs-dev] [ovs-discuss] Geneve remote_ip as flow for OVN hosts

Ben Pfaff blp at ovn.org
Wed Oct 31 17:30:14 UTC 2018


Honestly the best thing to do is probably to propose a design or, if
it's simple enough, to send a patch.  That will probably be more
effective at sparking a discussion.

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 03:33:48PM +0000, venugopal iyer wrote:
>  Hi:
> Just wanted to check if folks had any thoughts on the use case Girish outlined below. We do have
> a real use case for this and are interested in looking at options for supporting more than one VTEP IP.It is currently a limitation for us, wanted to know if there are similar use cases folks are looking at/interested in addressing.
> 
> thanks,
> -venu
> 
>     On Thursday, September 6, 2018, 9:19:01 AM PDT, venugopal iyer via dev <ovs-dev at openvswitch.org> wrote:  
>  
>  Would it be possible for the association <logical port|dst MAC, VTEP> to be made
> when the logical port is instantiated on a node? and relayed on to the SB by
> the controller, e.g. assuming a mechanism to specify/determine a physical port mapping for a
> logical port for a VM.  The <physical port,encap-ip> mappings can be specified as
> configuration on the chassis. In the absence of physical port information for
> a logical port/VM, I suppose we could default to an encap-ip.
> 
> 
> just a thought,
> -venu
>   On Wednesday, September 5, 2018, 2:03:35 PM PDT, Ben Pfaff <blp at ovn.org> wrote:  
>  
>  How would OVN know which IP to use for a given logical port on a
> chassis?
> 
> I think that the "multiple tunnel encapsulations" is meant to cover,
> say, Geneve vs. STT vs. VXLAN, not the case you have in mind.
> 
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 09:50:32AM -0700, Girish Moodalbail wrote:
> > Hello all,
> > 
> > I would like to add more context here. In the diagram below
> > 
> > +----------------------------------+
> > |ovn-host                          |
> > |                                  |
> > |                                  |
> > |      +-------------------------+|
> > |      |        br-int          ||
> > |      +----+-------------+------+|
> > |            |            |      |
> > |        +--v-----+  +---v----+  |
> > |        | geneve |  | geneve |  |
> > |        +--+-----+  +---+----+  |
> > |            |            |      |
> > |          +-v----+    +--v---+  |
> > |          | IP0  |    | IP1  |  |
> > |          +------+    +------+  |
> > +----------+ eth0 +-----+ eth1 +---+
> >            +------+    +------+
> > 
> > eth0 and eth are, say, in its own physical segments. The VMs that are
> > instantiated in the above ovn-host will have multiple interfaces and each
> > of those interface need to be on a different Geneve VTEP.
> > 
> > I think the following entry in OVN TODOs (
> > https://github.com/openvswitch/ovs/blob/master/ovn/TODO.rst)
> > 
> > ---------------8<------------------8<---------------
> > Support multiple tunnel encapsulations in Chassis.
> > 
> > So far, both ovn-controller and ovn-controller-vtep only allow chassis to
> > have one tunnel encapsulation entry. We should extend the implementation to
> > support multiple tunnel encapsulations
> > ---------------8<------------------8<---------------
> > 
> > captures the above requirement. Is that the case?
> > 
> > Thanks again.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > ~Girish
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 3:00 PM Girish Moodalbail <gmoodalbail at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > Is it possible to configure remote_ip as a 'flow' instead of an IP address
> > > (i.e., setting ovn-encap-ip to a single IP address)?
> > >
> > > Today, we have one VTEP endpoint per OVN host and all the VMs that
> > > connects to br-int  on that OVN host are reachable behind this VTEP
> > > endpoint. Is it possible to have multiple VTEP endpoints for a br-int
> > > bridge and use Open Flow flows to select one of the VTEP endpoint?
> > >
> > >
> > > +----------------------------------+
> > > |ovn-host                          |
> > > |                                  |
> > > |                                  |
> > > |      +-------------------------+|
> > > |      |        br-int          ||
> > > |      +----+-------------+------+|
> > > |            |            |      |
> > > |        +--v-----+  +---v----+  |
> > > |        | geneve |  | geneve |  |
> > > |        +--+-----+  +---+----+  |
> > > |            |            |      |
> > > |          +-v----+    +--v---+  |
> > > |          | IP0  |    | IP1  |  |
> > > |          +------+    +------+  |
> > > +----------+ eth0 +-----+ eth1 +---+
> > >            +------+    +------+
> > >
> > > Also, we don't want to bond eth0 and eth1 into a bond interface and then
> > > use bond's IP as VTEP endpoint.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance,
> > > ~Girish
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss at openvswitch.org
> > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev at openvswitch.org
> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
>   
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev at openvswitch.org
> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
>   


More information about the dev mailing list