[ovs-dev] [PATCH ovn v8 2/5] northd: make connected routes have higher priority than static

Vladislav Odintsov odivlad at gmail.com
Fri Nov 19 16:10:37 UTC 2021


Done: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ovn/patch/20211119160721.60612-2-odivlad@gmail.com/

Regards,
Vladislav Odintsov

> On 19 Nov 2021, at 17:55, Numan Siddique <numans at ovn.org> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 8:12 AM Vladislav Odintsov <odivlad at gmail.com <mailto:odivlad at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Numan,
>> 
>> yes, it’s ready. But I’ve based it on the commit from this patch [1].
>> Can you please take a look on it and apply if it’s okay.
>> Then I can send patch series without conflicting changes.
>> 
>> Or I can send it with that patch as a part of patchset.
>> 
>> 1: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ovn/patch/20211117203545.46142-1-odivlad@gmail.com/ <https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ovn/patch/20211117203545.46142-1-odivlad@gmail.com/>
> 
> I'd suggest if you can include [1] as part of the patchset.
> 
> Numan
> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Vladislav Odintsov
>> 
>>> On 18 Nov 2021, at 19:50, Numan Siddique <numans at ovn.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Vladislav,
>>> 
>>> Once v9 is ready,  please submit them. I'll take a look.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> Numan
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 2:58 AM Han Zhou <zhouhan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Sounds good to me.
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 11:53 PM Vladislav Odintsov <odivlad at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks, Han.
>>>>> Please see inline.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Vladislav Odintsov
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 18 Nov 2021, at 10:26, Han Zhou <zhouhan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 10:10 PM Vladislav Odintsov <odivlad at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Great, thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi @Han,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I’d like you to look at the patch series too. Would you have time on it?
>>>>> If yes, could you redirect me on terms please.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Vladislav,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for adding me. I am sorry that I don't think I will have enough time
>>>>> for a detailed review for this series until Nov 29. Not sure if you can
>>>>> wait that long, but I don't think my review is mandatory if Numan is
>>>>> reviewing all the patches in detail.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> It’s okay from my side to wait for Dec 2-3.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have a quick comment though, regarding the priority offset. It is
>>>>> mentioned in the commit message:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Each route's prefix length has its own 'slot' in lflow prios.
>>>>> Now prefix length space is calculated using next information:
>>>>> to calculate route's priority prefixlen multiplied by 3
>>>>> + route origin offset (0 - source-based route; 1 - directly-
>>>>> connected route; 2 - static route).
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> But in the code, 2 is for connected, and 1 is for static:
>>>>> 
>>>>> +#define ROUTE_PRIO_OFFSET_MULTIPLIER 3
>>>>> +#define ROUTE_PRIO_OFFSET_STATIC 1
>>>>> +#define ROUTE_PRIO_OFFSET_CONNECTED 2
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I wonder which one is your intent? I'd let the static route have higher
>>>>> priority, because otherwise why would the user add the static route at all?
>>>>> But this is more of a question than a suggestion. Is there any *standard*
>>>>> behavior or similar thing that we can refer from e.g. AWS?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> It’s a typo in commit message. I’ll fix that in v9.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is done to support well-known behaviour, where directly-connected
>>>>> routes take precedence over static routes for same CIDR.
>>>>> 
>>>>> To support AWS feature, where user can override "subnet" route (think,
>>>>> "connected") with a static route, additional work is needed.
>>>>> It’s not what I’m currently working on, but I thought about such use case
>>>>> and it seems that it can be easily supported by adding ability to add
>>>>> Logical_Router_Static_Route with some "override" flag, which ensures this
>>>>> static route would be installed with the highest priority.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, if no objections here or other comments for now I’ll send v9.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Han
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Vladislav Odintsov
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 18 Nov 2021, at 00:05, Numan Siddique <numans at ovn.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 3:38 PM Vladislav Odintsov <odivlad at gmail.com
>>>>> 
>>>>> <mailto:odivlad at gmail.com <odivlad at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I’ve submitted a patch [1] with my findings.
>>>>> Also, if no comments for other my patches from this patch series, I
>>>>> 
>>>>> can submit a new version.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Should I?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> No comments from my side.  Perhaps you can submit another version.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Numan
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ovn/patch/20211117203545.46142-1-odivlad@gmail.com/
>>>>> <
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ovn/patch/20211117203545.46142-1-odivlad@gmail.com/
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Vladislav Odintsov
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 17 Nov 2021, at 20:57, Numan Siddique <numans at ovn.org <mailto:
>>>>> 
>>>>> numans at ovn.org>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 9:24 AM Vladislav Odintsov <odivlad at gmail.com
>>>>> 
>>>>> <mailto:odivlad at gmail.com <odivlad at gmail.com>> <mailto:odivlad at gmail.com
>>>>> <odivlad at gmail.com> <mailto:
>>>>> odivlad at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Two additions:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1. Regarding documentation for flow in lr_in_defrag section:
>>>>> 
>>>>> It seems to me that documentation for it is written in a wrong
>>>>> 
>>>>> section (lr_in_defrag).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Since the flow is installed in lr_in_ip_routing, it should be
>>>>> 
>>>>> documented there.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I’ll move it if you don’t mind.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sure.  Thanks.  I'd suggest having a separate patch for fixing the
>>>>> documentation.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2. Documentation for other flow changes was added, but I’ve
>>>>> 
>>>>> committed it to a wrong patch (#3).
>>>>> 
>>>>> I’ll move documentation update between patches.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ack.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Numan
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Vladislav Odintsov
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 17 Nov 2021, at 13:51, Vladislav Odintsov <odivlad at gmail.com>
>>>>> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Numan,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for the review.
>>>>> Sure I will fix this. Should I wait for more comments or that’s all
>>>>> 
>>>>> and I can send v9?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Vladislav Odintsov
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 17 Nov 2021, at 05:17, Numan Siddique <numans at ovn.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 4:44 AM Vladislav Odintsov <
>>>>> 
>>>>> odivlad at gmail.com <mailto:odivlad at gmail.com <odivlad at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> With this patch routes to connected networks have higher
>>>>> priority than static routes with same ip_prefix.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This brings commonly-used behaviour for routes lookup order:
>>>>> 1: longest prefix match
>>>>> 2: metric
>>>>> 
>>>>> The metric has next lookup order:
>>>>> 1: connected routes
>>>>> 2: static routes
>>>>> 
>>>>> Earlier static and connected routes with same ip_prefix had
>>>>> the same priority, so it was impossible to predict which one
>>>>> is used for routing decision.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Each route's prefix length has its own 'slot' in lflow prios.
>>>>> Now prefix length space is calculated using next information:
>>>>> to calculate route's priority prefixlen multiplied by 3
>>>>> + route origin offset (0 - source-based route; 1 - directly-
>>>>> connected route; 2 - static route).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Also, enlarge prio for generic records in lr_in_ip_routing stage
>>>>> by 10000.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vladislav Odintsov <odivlad at gmail.com>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Vladislav,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for the patch.  Overall it looks good to me.  I've one
>>>>> 
>>>>> comment.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Looks like the documentation updated in ovn-northd.8.xml is not
>>>>> 
>>>>> accurate.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> This patch modifies the flows in the lr_in_ip_routing stage but
>>>>> 
>>>>> this
>>>>> 
>>>>> patch doesn't update the documentation.
>>>>> Also the patch updates the documentation for the flow in
>>>>> 
>>>>> lr_in_defrag
>>>>> 
>>>>> stage, which seems not correct.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Can you please update the documentation accurately ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Numan
>>>>> 
>>>>> ---
>>>>> northd/northd.c         | 50
>>>>> 
>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>>>>> 
>>>>> northd/ovn-northd.8.xml | 12 +++++-----
>>>>> tests/ovn-northd.at     |  8 +++----
>>>>> 3 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>>>>> 
>>>>> diff --git a/northd/northd.c b/northd/northd.c
>>>>> index 1e8a3457c..0d513f039 100644
>>>>> --- a/northd/northd.c
>>>>> +++ b/northd/northd.c
>>>>> @@ -305,6 +305,15 @@ enum ovn_stage {
>>>>> *
>>>>> */
>>>>> 
>>>>> +/*
>>>>> + * Route offsets implement logic to prioritize traffic for
>>>>> 
>>>>> routes with
>>>>> 
>>>>> + * same ip_prefix values:
>>>>> + *  -  connected route overrides static one;
>>>>> + *  -  static route overrides connected route. */
>>>>> +#define ROUTE_PRIO_OFFSET_MULTIPLIER 3
>>>>> +#define ROUTE_PRIO_OFFSET_STATIC 1
>>>>> +#define ROUTE_PRIO_OFFSET_CONNECTED 2
>>>>> +
>>>>> /* Returns an "enum ovn_stage" built from the arguments. */
>>>>> static enum ovn_stage
>>>>> ovn_stage_build(enum ovn_datapath_type dp_type, enum ovn_pipeline
>>>>> 
>>>>> pipeline,
>>>>> 
>>>>> @@ -8782,6 +8791,7 @@ struct ecmp_groups_node {
>>>>> struct in6_addr prefix;
>>>>> unsigned int plen;
>>>>> bool is_src_route;
>>>>> +    const char *origin;
>>>>> uint16_t route_count;
>>>>> struct ovs_list route_list; /* Contains ecmp_route_list_node */
>>>>> };
>>>>> @@ -8819,6 +8829,7 @@ ecmp_groups_add(struct hmap *ecmp_groups,
>>>>> eg->prefix = route->prefix;
>>>>> eg->plen = route->plen;
>>>>> eg->is_src_route = route->is_src_route;
>>>>> +    eg->origin = smap_get_def(&route->route->options, "origin",
>>>>> 
>>>>> "");
>>>>> 
>>>>> ovs_list_init(&eg->route_list);
>>>>> ecmp_groups_add_route(eg, route);
>>>>> 
>>>>> @@ -8919,19 +8930,20 @@ build_route_prefix_s(const struct
>>>>> 
>>>>> in6_addr *prefix, unsigned int plen)
>>>>> 
>>>>> static void
>>>>> build_route_match(const struct ovn_port *op_inport, const char
>>>>> 
>>>>> *network_s,
>>>>> 
>>>>>             int plen, bool is_src_route, bool is_ipv4, struct
>>>>> 
>>>>> ds *match,
>>>>> 
>>>>> -                  uint16_t *priority)
>>>>> +                  uint16_t *priority, int ofs)
>>>>> {
>>>>> const char *dir;
>>>>> /* The priority here is calculated to implement
>>>>> 
>>>>> longest-prefix-match
>>>>> 
>>>>> * routing. */
>>>>> if (is_src_route) {
>>>>>   dir = "src";
>>>>> -        *priority = plen * 2;
>>>>> +        ofs = 0;
>>>>> } else {
>>>>>   dir = "dst";
>>>>> -        *priority = (plen * 2) + 1;
>>>>> }
>>>>> 
>>>>> +    *priority = (plen * ROUTE_PRIO_OFFSET_MULTIPLIER) + ofs;
>>>>> +
>>>>> if (op_inport) {
>>>>>   ds_put_format(match, "inport == %s && ",
>>>>> 
>>>>> op_inport->json_key);
>>>>> 
>>>>> }
>>>>> @@ -9073,7 +9085,7 @@ add_ecmp_symmetric_reply_flows(struct hmap
>>>>> 
>>>>> *lflows,
>>>>> 
>>>>>             out_port->lrp_networks.ea_s,
>>>>>             IN6_IS_ADDR_V4MAPPED(&route->prefix) ? "" : "xx",
>>>>>             port_ip, out_port->json_key);
>>>>> -    ovn_lflow_add_with_hint(lflows, od, S_ROUTER_IN_IP_ROUTING,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 300,
>>>>> 
>>>>> +    ovn_lflow_add_with_hint(lflows, od, S_ROUTER_IN_IP_ROUTING,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 10300,
>>>>> 
>>>>>                      ds_cstr(&match), ds_cstr(&actions),
>>>>>                      &st_route->header_);
>>>>> 
>>>>> @@ -9103,8 +9115,10 @@ build_ecmp_route_flow(struct hmap *lflows,
>>>>> 
>>>>> struct ovn_datapath *od,
>>>>> 
>>>>> struct ds route_match = DS_EMPTY_INITIALIZER;
>>>>> 
>>>>> char *prefix_s = build_route_prefix_s(&eg->prefix, eg->plen);
>>>>> +    int ofs = !strcmp(eg->origin, ROUTE_ORIGIN_CONNECTED) ?
>>>>> +        ROUTE_PRIO_OFFSET_CONNECTED: ROUTE_PRIO_OFFSET_STATIC;
>>>>> build_route_match(NULL, prefix_s, eg->plen, eg->is_src_route,
>>>>> 
>>>>> is_ipv4,
>>>>> 
>>>>> -                      &route_match, &priority);
>>>>> +                      &route_match, &priority, ofs);
>>>>> free(prefix_s);
>>>>> 
>>>>> struct ds actions = DS_EMPTY_INITIALIZER;
>>>>> @@ -9180,7 +9194,7 @@ add_route(struct hmap *lflows, struct
>>>>> 
>>>>> ovn_datapath *od,
>>>>> 
>>>>>     const struct ovn_port *op, const char *lrp_addr_s,
>>>>>     const char *network_s, int plen, const char *gateway,
>>>>>     bool is_src_route, const struct ovsdb_idl_row *stage_hint,
>>>>> -          bool is_discard_route)
>>>>> +          bool is_discard_route, int ofs)
>>>>> {
>>>>> bool is_ipv4 = strchr(network_s, '.') ? true : false;
>>>>> struct ds match = DS_EMPTY_INITIALIZER;
>>>>> @@ -9196,7 +9210,7 @@ add_route(struct hmap *lflows, struct
>>>>> 
>>>>> ovn_datapath *od,
>>>>> 
>>>>>   }
>>>>> }
>>>>> build_route_match(op_inport, network_s, plen, is_src_route,
>>>>> 
>>>>> is_ipv4,
>>>>> 
>>>>> -                      &match, &priority);
>>>>> +                      &match, &priority, ofs);
>>>>> 
>>>>> struct ds common_actions = DS_EMPTY_INITIALIZER;
>>>>> struct ds actions = DS_EMPTY_INITIALIZER;
>>>>> @@ -9256,10 +9270,15 @@ build_static_route_flow(struct hmap
>>>>> 
>>>>> *lflows, struct ovn_datapath *od,
>>>>> 
>>>>>   }
>>>>> }
>>>>> 
>>>>> +    int ofs = !strcmp(smap_get_def(&route->options, "origin",
>>>>> 
>>>>> ""),
>>>>> 
>>>>> +                      ROUTE_ORIGIN_CONNECTED) ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> ROUTE_PRIO_OFFSET_CONNECTED
>>>>> 
>>>>> +                                              :
>>>>> 
>>>>> ROUTE_PRIO_OFFSET_STATIC;
>>>>> 
>>>>> +
>>>>> char *prefix_s = build_route_prefix_s(&route_->prefix,
>>>>> 
>>>>> route_->plen);
>>>>> 
>>>>> add_route(lflows, route_->is_discard_route ? od : out_port->od,
>>>>> 
>>>>> out_port,
>>>>> 
>>>>>         lrp_addr_s, prefix_s, route_->plen, route->nexthop,
>>>>> -              route_->is_src_route, &route->header_,
>>>>> 
>>>>> route_->is_discard_route);
>>>>> 
>>>>> +              route_->is_src_route, &route->header_,
>>>>> 
>>>>> route_->is_discard_route,
>>>>> 
>>>>> +              ofs);
>>>>> 
>>>>> free(prefix_s);
>>>>> }
>>>>> @@ -10672,14 +10691,14 @@ build_ip_routing_flows_for_lrouter_port(
>>>>>       add_route(lflows, op->od, op,
>>>>> 
>>>>> op->lrp_networks.ipv4_addrs[i].addr_s,
>>>>> 
>>>>>                 op->lrp_networks.ipv4_addrs[i].network_s,
>>>>>                 op->lrp_networks.ipv4_addrs[i].plen, NULL,
>>>>> 
>>>>> false,
>>>>> 
>>>>> -                      &op->nbrp->header_, false);
>>>>> +                      &op->nbrp->header_, false,
>>>>> 
>>>>> ROUTE_PRIO_OFFSET_CONNECTED);
>>>>> 
>>>>>   }
>>>>> 
>>>>>   for (int i = 0; i < op->lrp_networks.n_ipv6_addrs; i++) {
>>>>>       add_route(lflows, op->od, op,
>>>>> 
>>>>> op->lrp_networks.ipv6_addrs[i].addr_s,
>>>>> 
>>>>>                 op->lrp_networks.ipv6_addrs[i].network_s,
>>>>>                 op->lrp_networks.ipv6_addrs[i].plen, NULL,
>>>>> 
>>>>> false,
>>>>> 
>>>>> -                      &op->nbrp->header_, false);
>>>>> +                      &op->nbrp->header_, false,
>>>>> 
>>>>> ROUTE_PRIO_OFFSET_CONNECTED);
>>>>> 
>>>>>   }
>>>>> } else if (lsp_is_router(op->nbsp)) {
>>>>>   struct ovn_port *peer = ovn_port_get_peer(ports, op);
>>>>> @@ -10702,7 +10721,8 @@ build_ip_routing_flows_for_lrouter_port(
>>>>> 
>>>>> peer->lrp_networks.ipv4_addrs[0].addr_s,
>>>>> 
>>>>>                         laddrs->ipv4_addrs[k].network_s,
>>>>>                         laddrs->ipv4_addrs[k].plen, NULL,
>>>>> 
>>>>> false,
>>>>> 
>>>>> -                              &peer->nbrp->header_, false);
>>>>> +                              &peer->nbrp->header_, false,
>>>>> +                              ROUTE_PRIO_OFFSET_CONNECTED);
>>>>>           }
>>>>>       }
>>>>>   }
>>>>> @@ -10773,7 +10793,7 @@ build_mcast_lookup_flows_for_lrouter(
>>>>>   /* Drop IPv6 multicast traffic that shouldn't be forwarded,
>>>>>    * i.e., router solicitation and router advertisement.
>>>>>    */
>>>>> -        ovn_lflow_add(lflows, od, S_ROUTER_IN_IP_ROUTING, 550,
>>>>> +        ovn_lflow_add(lflows, od, S_ROUTER_IN_IP_ROUTING, 10550,
>>>>>                 "nd_rs || nd_ra", "drop;");
>>>>>   if (!od->mcast_info.rtr.relay) {
>>>>>       return;
>>>>> @@ -10801,7 +10821,7 @@ build_mcast_lookup_flows_for_lrouter(
>>>>>       }
>>>>>       ds_put_format(actions, "outport = \"%s\"; ip.ttl--;
>>>>> 
>>>>> next;",
>>>>> 
>>>>>                     igmp_group->mcgroup.name);
>>>>> -            ovn_lflow_add(lflows, od, S_ROUTER_IN_IP_ROUTING,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 500,
>>>>> 
>>>>> +            ovn_lflow_add(lflows, od, S_ROUTER_IN_IP_ROUTING,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 10500,
>>>>> 
>>>>>                     ds_cstr(match), ds_cstr(actions));
>>>>>   }
>>>>> 
>>>>> @@ -10809,7 +10829,7 @@ build_mcast_lookup_flows_for_lrouter(
>>>>>    * ports. Otherwise drop any multicast traffic.
>>>>>    */
>>>>>   if (od->mcast_info.rtr.flood_static) {
>>>>> -            ovn_lflow_add(lflows, od, S_ROUTER_IN_IP_ROUTING,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 450,
>>>>> 
>>>>> +            ovn_lflow_add(lflows, od, S_ROUTER_IN_IP_ROUTING,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 10450,
>>>>> 
>>>>>                     "ip4.mcast || ip6.mcast",
>>>>>                     "clone { "
>>>>>                           "outport = \""MC_STATIC"\"; "
>>>>> @@ -10817,7 +10837,7 @@ build_mcast_lookup_flows_for_lrouter(
>>>>>                           "next; "
>>>>>                     "};");
>>>>>   } else {
>>>>> -            ovn_lflow_add(lflows, od, S_ROUTER_IN_IP_ROUTING,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 450,
>>>>> 
>>>>> +            ovn_lflow_add(lflows, od, S_ROUTER_IN_IP_ROUTING,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 10450,
>>>>> 
>>>>>                     "ip4.mcast || ip6.mcast", "drop;");
>>>>>   }
>>>>> }
>>>>> diff --git a/northd/ovn-northd.8.xml b/northd/ovn-northd.8.xml
>>>>> index fb67395e3..4f3a9d5e3 100644
>>>>> --- a/northd/ovn-northd.8.xml
>>>>> +++ b/northd/ovn-northd.8.xml
>>>>> @@ -2945,12 +2945,12 @@ icmp6 {
>>>>> 
>>>>> <p>
>>>>> If ECMP routes with symmetric reply are configured in the
>>>>> -      <code>OVN_Northbound</code> database for a gateway router,
>>>>> 
>>>>> a priority-300
>>>>> 
>>>>> -      flow is added for each router port on which symmetric
>>>>> 
>>>>> replies are
>>>>> 
>>>>> -      configured. The matching logic for these ports essentially
>>>>> 
>>>>> reverses the
>>>>> 
>>>>> -      configured logic of the ECMP route. So for instance, a
>>>>> 
>>>>> route with a
>>>>> 
>>>>> -      destination routing policy will instead match if the
>>>>> 
>>>>> source IP address
>>>>> 
>>>>> -      matches the static route's prefix. The flow uses the action
>>>>> +      <code>OVN_Northbound</code> database for a gateway router,
>>>>> 
>>>>> a
>>>>> 
>>>>> +      priority-10300 flow is added for each router port on which
>>>>> 
>>>>> symmetric
>>>>> 
>>>>> +      replies are configured. The matching logic for these ports
>>>>> 
>>>>> essentially
>>>>> 
>>>>> +      reverses the configured logic of the ECMP route. So for
>>>>> 
>>>>> instance, a route
>>>>> 
>>>>> +      with a destination routing policy will instead match if
>>>>> 
>>>>> the source IP
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> dev mailing list
>> dev at openvswitch.org
>> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev at openvswitch.org <mailto:dev at openvswitch.org>
> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev <https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev>


More information about the dev mailing list