[ovs-discuss] Scalability Questions in High-Density Virtualisation Environments
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).
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:
More information about the discuss