[sfc-dev] [opnfv-tech-discuss] [SFC] [ovsnfv] Slides to show OpenStack NSH Issues
Gray, Mark D
mark.d.gray at intel.com
Fri Aug 28 22:22:58 UTC 2015
Fixing the mail alias.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: opnfv-tech-discuss-bounces at lists.opnfv.org [mailto:opnfv-tech-
> discuss-bounces at lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Thomas F Herbert
> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 10:53 AM
> To: Sam Hague; sfc-dev at lists.opendaylight.org; opnfv-tech-
> discuss at lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [SFC] <opnv-ovsnfv> Slides to show
> OpenStack NSH Issues
> On 8/27/15 11:57 AM, Sam Hague wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I had the acttion items to create slides showing the issues when using
> > OpenStack instantiated VMs that cannot terminate VxLAN/NSH tunnels.
> > Those are at [slides]. W can use this as a basis for working out the
> > solutions.
> > Thanks, Sam
> > [slides]
> > https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1y0A1DNA1bB6y-1hR-
> > vj8BdaEMC4n2I/edit?usp=sharing
> Thanks Sam! Fantastic summary.
> From slides referenced above: .....<snip> Still have same limitation on
> requiring a VTEP for VxLAN/NSH ....<snip>....
> I don't understand the statement above. Why is the necessity of a vtep a
> "limitation?" Doesn't the vxLan endpoint require a vtep or are you saying that
> this patch won't solve the problem stated in slide 9, .........<snip>...
> Result: OVS tries to be too smart, it recognizes the VxLAN header and
> expects a VTEP, otherwise it drops the packet"
> > _______________________________________________
> > opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> > opnfv-tech-discuss at lists.opnfv.org
> > https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
> Thomas F Herbert Red Hat
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss at lists.opnfv.org
More information about the sfc-dev