[ovs-discuss] communication among VMs in multiple physical hosts

[Nan]

sure, I will try that 

Thank you very much 

-- 
Nan


On Friday, 18 October, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Alex Wang wrote:

> Yes, you can try ping from the two vms.  and the ping should work with this setup,
> 
> 
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Nan <codingcatovs at gmail.com (mailto:codingcatovs at gmail.com)> wrote:
> > Ah, thanks, Alex 
> > 
> > if I want the VMs on host 1 and host 2 to be able to communicate with each other, 
> > 
> > I still need the tunnel? 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Nan
> > 
> > 
> > On Friday, 18 October, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Alex Wang wrote:
> > 
> > > Well, as the FAQ says,
> > > 
> > > """
> > > A physical Ethernet device that is part of an Open vSwitch bridge should not have an IP address.  If one does, then that IP address will not be fully functional.
> > > 
> > > """
> > > 
> > > The eth1 on br0 still has address "192.168.2.1". 
> > > 
> > > If you still want eth0 on br0 and eth1 having address "192.168.2.1", one feasible configuration is to use tunnel. E.g. 
> > > 
> > > On host1:
> > > ovs-vsctl del-port eth1
> > > ovs-vsctl add-port tunnel_to_host2 -- set interface tunnel_to_host2 type=gre options:remote_ip=192.168.2.2 
> > > 
> > > On host2:
> > > ovs-vsctl del-port eth1
> > > ovs-vsctl add-port tunnel_to_host1 -- set interface tunnel_to_host1 type=gre options:remote_ip=192.168.2.1 
> > > 
> > > This is actually a common solution for directing traffic to corresponding physical interface. 
> > > 
> > > Thanks, 
> > 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-discuss/attachments/20131018/56646fa3/attachment.html>