[ovs-discuss] VXLAN support in OVS 2.5.0

Michael Ben-Ami mbenami at digitalocean.com
Fri Jan 13 16:20:59 UTC 2017


I'm in a very similar boat as Shravan. The utility for me is to be able to
test flow sets on arbitrary mininet topologies that simulate real world
topologies that may or may not use VXLAN. The root cause as I see it is
that mininet must put all OVS bridges in the same namespace. This is
probably an OVS limitation not mininet. Has been discussed a little here:
https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-discuss/2015-September/038543.html

Of course you could start mininet itself in different namespaces, but that
defeats a lot of the purpose of building topologies within a mininet.

Shravan, if you find a workable solution please let me know.

Thanks,
Michael

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 7:07 AM, O'Reilly, Darragh <darragh.oreilly at hpe.com>
wrote:

>
>
> Not sure what you are trying to do. But if you just want to connect two
> bridges on the same host, then you can use patches or veths.
>
> But if you really want to use vxlan, then maybe the loopback (lo
> 127.0.0.1/8) can be used, something like this:
>
>
>
> ovs-vsctl add-br br0
>
> ovs-vsctl add-port br0 vxlan0 -- set interface vxlan0 type=vxlan
> options:local_ip=127.1.1.1 options:remote_ip=127.2.2.2
>
>
>
> ovs-vsctl add-br br1
>
> ovs-vsctl add-port br1 vxlan1 -- set interface vxlan1 type=vxlan
> options:local_ip=127.2.2.2 options:remote_ip=127.1.1.1
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ovs-discuss-bounces at openvswitch.org [mailto:ovs-discuss-bounces@
> openvswitch.org] *On Behalf Of *Shravan S K
> *Sent:* 13 January 2017 10:21
>
> *To:* Scott Lowe <scott.lowe at scottlowe.org>
> *Cc:* ovs-discuss at openvswitch.org
> *Subject:* Re: [ovs-discuss] VXLAN support in OVS 2.5.0
>
>
>
> My motive is to simulate VXLAN functionality on a bigger topology using
> mininet.
> My plan - As Mininet uses OVS bridges to simulate vswitch functionality,
> we can use ovs-vsctl to configure VXLAN functionality on the bridges. I
> thought let me try for a simple topology without using Mininet and just
> using OVS on a single host and 2 VMs. If it works, then I can make a
> similar configuration for a bigger topology using mininet.
>
>
>
> OVS on a single host and 2 VMs : vm1-----br1-------br2-----vm2
>
> I am confused on how to perform the vxlan config for the above setup.
>
>
>
> If the above one works, I could try on the mininet topologies.
>
> For the mininet topology ( --topo=linear,2 )
>
> h1 ----- s1 ------ s2 -------- h2 (h1,h2 are hosts, s1,s2 are switches -
> actually ovs bridges)
>
> *$ ovs-vsctl show *
> ad172f01-511d-46fe-9022-d23de31e06e2
>     Bridge "s2"
>         Controller "ptcp:6635"
>         fail_mode: standalone
>         Port "s2-eth2"
>             Interface "s2-eth2"
>         Port "s2"
>             Interface "s2"
>                 type: internal
>         Port "s2-eth1"
>             Interface "s2-eth1"
>     Bridge "s1"
>         Controller "ptcp:6634"
>         fail_mode: standalone
>         Port "s1-eth2"
>             Interface "s1-eth2"
>         Port "s1"
>             Interface "s1"
>                 type: internal
>         Port "s1-eth1"
>             Interface "s1-eth1"
>     ovs_version: "2.5.0"
>
> In the mininet console,
>
> *mininet>net*
> h1 h1-eth0:s1-eth1
> h2 h2-eth0:s2-eth1
> s1 lo:  s1-eth1:h1-eth0 s1-eth2:s2-eth2
> s2 lo:  s2-eth1:h2-eth0 s2-eth2:s1-eth2
>
> As the vxlan configuration part is related to OVS, I am asking in this
> forum, rather than the mininet forum.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Shravan
>
>
>
> On 13 January 2017 at 11:08, Scott Lowe <scott.lowe at scottlowe.org> wrote:
>
> I would still echo Raymond's suggestion: use VirtualBox to create two
> "hosts" running OVS and connect them via a VXLAN tunnel over standard VBox
> networking. You can use network namespaces (as Justin suggested) on the VMs
> running OVS to simulate connecting to OVS since VBox doesn't support nested
> virtualization.
>
>
>
> You can take a look at <https://github.com/lowescott/learning-tools> to
> see if there is a Vagrant environment I've already created that might help
> you in this situation.
>
>
> --
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> Sent from my mobile device
>
>
> On Jan 12, 2017, at 9:46 PM, Shravan S K <sra9449 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I know that. But I wanted to experiment with OVS bridges first, and then
> if it worked I wanted to re-create the config for a larger topology using
> Mininet(which uses OVS bridges(for switches) using OVS).
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> Shravan
>
>
>
> On 13 January 2017 at 08:06, Raymond Burkholder <ray at oneunified.net>
> wrote:
>
> Try running VirtualBox, and build two guests with shared networking.
> That will get you an appropriate simulation of computer to computer vxlan
> mechanisms.
>
>
>
> *From:* ovs-discuss-bounces at openvswitch.org [mailto:ovs-discuss-bounces@
> openvswitch.org] *On Behalf Of *Shravan S K
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 12, 2017 22:34
> *To:* Scott Lowe <scott.lowe at scottlowe.org>
> *Cc:* ovs-discuss at openvswitch.org
> *Subject:* Re: [ovs-discuss] VXLAN support in OVS 2.5.0
>
>
>
> Because of lack of hardware, I'm trying a vxlan setup on a single
> computer.
>
> On 13-Jan-2017 04:47, "Scott Lowe" <scott.lowe at scottlowe.org> wrote:
>
> Please don't drop the list.
>
> Before we go down that path, can you help me understand what you're
> trying to achieve by building a VXLAN tunnel between two VMs on the same
> host?
>
>
>
> On 01/12/2017 10:15 AM, Shravan S K wrote:
> > I am not sure how to do the config for what you said.
> > Can you please explain how to configure the setup that you're suggesting
> ?
> >
> > Shravan
> >
> > On 12 January 2017 at 02:17, Scott Lowe <scott.lowe at scottlowe.org
> > <mailto:scott.lowe at scottlowe.org>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 01/11/2017 03:54 AM, Shravan S K wrote:
> >     > Like this?
> >     > vm01-------------------|
> >     > |------------------vm03
> >     >
> >     > br1(vxlanport1)------------br-int1=================br-int2--
> --------(vxlanport2)br2
> >     > vm02-------------------|
> >     > |-------------------vm04
> >     >
> >     > What is the need for the bridges br-int1 and br-int2? Why is it not
> >     > possible without them(as the topology shown earlier in this
> thread)?
> >
> >
> >     [SL] No, I don't think this is the configuration you'd want to use.
> The
> >     "br-int" bridges aren't strictly required; you could use br1 and br2.
> >     The trick here---as you're trying to create a VXLAN tunnel within a
> >     host---would be that you'll need 2 IP endpoints (one for each end of
> the
> >     tunnel), and you'd need each bridge with a VXLAN port to be
> associated
> >     with one of those IP endpoints.
> >
> >     As I said, though, I haven't tested a configuration like this.
> Further,
> >     to be honest, I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish
> with
> >     such a configuration.
> >
> >
> >     > Shravan
> >     >
> >     > On 11 January 2017 at 11:59, Scott Lowe <scott.lowe at scottlowe.org
> <mailto:scott.lowe at scottlowe.org>
> >     > <mailto:scott.lowe at scottlowe.org <mailto:scott.lowe at scottlowe.org>>>
> wrote:
> >     >
> >     > Please see my response inline, prefixed with [SL].
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > On 01/10/2017 09:50 PM, Shravan S K wrote:
> >     >> I am asking if that can be done on a single physical host having
> >     >> OVS. Say, as mininet creates bridges which act as switches. Can
> >     >> vxlan be setup using Mininet?
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > [SL] I don't know if it's possible for Mininet to set up VXLAN;
> >     > that's a question best asked on a Mininet-related forum.
> >     >
> >     > As for whether it can be done on a single host, I suppose if you
> were
> >     > to use 2 separate bridges for physical connectivity along with 2
> >     > separate bridges for the tunnels, it might work. I've never tried
> it,
> >     > though, so this is just conjecture.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >> Shravan
> >     >>
> >     >> On 10 January 2017 at 23:33, Scott Lowe <scott.lowe at scottlowe.org
> <mailto:scott.lowe at scottlowe.org>
> >     <mailto:scott.lowe at scottlowe.org <mailto:scott.lowe at scottlowe.org>>
> >     >> <mailto:scott.lowe at scottlowe.org
> >     <mailto:scott.lowe at scottlowe.org> <mailto:scott.lowe at scottlowe.org
> >     <mailto:scott.lowe at scottlowe.org>>>> wrote:
> >     >>
> >     >> Please see my response below.
> >     >>
> >     >>
> >     >> On 01/10/2017 02:26 AM, Shravan S K wrote:
> >     >>> Is it possible to create a VXLAN setup using just bridges created
> >     >>> by OVS? (using ovs-vsctl to create these bridges,ports and vxlan
> >     >>> config)
> >     >>>
> >     >>> vm01-------------------|             |------------------vm03
> >     >>>                           br1-------br2
> >     >>> vm02-------------------|             |-------------------vm04
> >     >>
> >     >>
> >     >> Yes, this is possible. On each hypervisor where OVS is running and
> >     >> where you have VMs you'd like to connect over VXLAN tunnels,
> create
> >     >> a bridge ("br-tun", for example). Create and configure a VXLAN
> port
> >     >> appropriately on br-tun on each hypervisor, and then connect your
> >     >> VMs. You should be good to go. My website has an example of doing
> >     >> this with GRE; VXLAN should be nearly identical.
> >     >>
> >     >> Hope this helps,
> >
> >
> >     --
> >     Scott
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at openvswitch.org
> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at openvswitch.org
> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-discuss/attachments/20170113/7b0e07fb/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the discuss mailing list