[ovs-discuss] Scalability Questions in High-Density Virtualisation Environments

Justin Pettit jpettit at nicira.com
Thu Sep 8 05:36:11 UTC 2011


Right, I agree.  I was just referring to the ability to use its UDP tunneling format to get through devices that don't like GRE.  We're also planning to support a mode where VXLAN is a virtual port, like GRE, and traffic that is sent out it will be encapsulated (and decapsulated on receive).

--Justin


On Sep 7, 2011, at 10:03 PM, Nicky Fatr wrote:

> Yes, VXLAN tunnel header is a good proposal, but for control plane
> there is serve limitation: it depend on physical network multicast for
> MAC learning. In OVS, central ovsdb controlled MAC address propagation
> is a better choice.
> 
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Justin Pettit <jpettit at nicira.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 7, 2011, at 9:01 AM, Nicky Fatr wrote:
>> 
>>> I don't think that TRILL/802.1AQ L2 over L2 is a good option for large
>>> scale deployment. L2 over L3 instead is more scalable, eliminating
>>> comlexity of physical network.
>>> 
>>> maybe we can expect L2 over UDP in some future release, for UDP is
>>> more friendly than GRE in some networking configuration.
>> 
>> You can already do L2-over-L3 with CAPWAP.  It doesn't support a configurable context identifier (key), but a patch has been provided by Valient Gough and Simon Horman that adds it.  We're also looking at supporting VXLAN, which was recently announced:
>> 
>>        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-00
>> 
>> --Justin
>> 
>> 
>> 




More information about the discuss mailing list