[ovs-discuss] Fwd: Rhel 6.1 - openvswitch 1.2.2 - network commutation between physical and virtual - doesn't work

[Jesse Gross]

On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Benoit ML <ben42ml at gmail.com> wrote:
> hi,
>
> 2011/10/1 Jesse Gross <jesse at nicira.com>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 3:13 AM, Benoit ML <ben42ml at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hey,
>> > Thank for the answer.  I'have the same matter with bnx2x on rhel6.1 ...
>> > In the H3C documentation there is a subject about vlan (thank to Leland)
>> > :
>> > "The default VLAN IDs of the Trunk ports on the local and peer devices
>> > must be the same. Otherwise, packets cannot be transmitted properly."
>> > What did you think about that ?
>>
>> Do you have a default vlan configured on the switch that is the same
>> as the one you are trying to use?  If so, that would explain the
>> problem because it will cause the packets to be sent untagged on the
>> assumption that the remote switch will interprete them as the same
>> vlan.
>>
>> You could try creating a vlan with vconfig to see if it recognizes the
>> tagged traffic.
>>
>
> The native vlan (pvid) of the trunk port of the H3C switch is 99. The switch
> can also carry tagged vlan 2 and 3702.
> The openvswitch  port is configured like this : add-port br0 eth4
> trunk=[0,2,3702], to carry untagged traffic and to carry vlan tagged  to the
> switch.
> I've tested with the vlan system (vconfig)  : works juste fine.

OK, sounds like it really is a driver issue.

>>
>> > From your point of view what will be the best manner to have the thing
>> > works
>> > ?  I've tested the last driver be2net from Emulex without  success ...
>> > Eventually I can use another linux distribution ?
>>
>> Assuming that the physical switch is configured correctly, the
>> situation is improving with newer kernels and should be resolved for
>> all devices when Linux 3.1 is released.  A distribution such as Ubuntu
>> that is more aggressive about tracking kernel releases will likely
>> have better results.
>
>
> Do you think that a 2.6.38 (ubuntu or fedora) or a 2.6.40 (fedora updates)
> could be ok ?
> For my personnel information, what are the majors difference between now and
> 3.1 ? The way how vlan are handle ?

There's new vlan infrastructure in 2.6.37/38 and then drivers needed
to be converted over to use it, which was completed for 3.1.  Some
drivers also worked around it on their own before the new
infrastructure.  So basically the more recent the kernel, the more
likely it is work properly.