[ovs-discuss] Fwd: Rhel 6.1 - openvswitch 1.2.2 - network commutation between physical and virtual - doesn't work
ben42ml at gmail.com
Mon Oct 3 04:37:13 PDT 2011
Well I've changed the network card (10Gbit bnx2x or be2net) by a less
powerfull one (Gigabit bnx2) and it works very well.
Thank you for your time.
2011/10/1 Jesse Gross <jesse at nicira.com>
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Benoit ML <ben42ml at gmail.com> wrote:
> > hi,
> > 2011/10/1 Jesse Gross <jesse at nicira.com>
> >> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 3:13 AM, Benoit ML <ben42ml at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Hey,
> >> > Thank for the answer. I'have the same matter with bnx2x on rhel6.1
> >> > In the H3C documentation there is a subject about vlan (thank to
> >> > :
> >> > "The default VLAN IDs of the Trunk ports on the local and peer devices
> >> > must be the same. Otherwise, packets cannot be transmitted properly."
> >> > What did you think about that ?
> >> Do you have a default vlan configured on the switch that is the same
> >> as the one you are trying to use? If so, that would explain the
> >> problem because it will cause the packets to be sent untagged on the
> >> assumption that the remote switch will interprete them as the same
> >> vlan.
> >> You could try creating a vlan with vconfig to see if it recognizes the
> >> tagged traffic.
> > The native vlan (pvid) of the trunk port of the H3C switch is 99. The
> > can also carry tagged vlan 2 and 3702.
> > The openvswitch port is configured like this : add-port br0 eth4
> > trunk=[0,2,3702], to carry untagged traffic and to carry vlan tagged to
> > switch.
> > I've tested with the vlan system (vconfig) : works juste fine.
> OK, sounds like it really is a driver issue.
> >> > From your point of view what will be the best manner to have the thing
> >> > works
> >> > ? I've tested the last driver be2net from Emulex without success ...
> >> > Eventually I can use another linux distribution ?
> >> Assuming that the physical switch is configured correctly, the
> >> situation is improving with newer kernels and should be resolved for
> >> all devices when Linux 3.1 is released. A distribution such as Ubuntu
> >> that is more aggressive about tracking kernel releases will likely
> >> have better results.
> > Do you think that a 2.6.38 (ubuntu or fedora) or a 2.6.40 (fedora
> > could be ok ?
> > For my personnel information, what are the majors difference between now
> > 3.1 ? The way how vlan are handle ?
> There's new vlan infrastructure in 2.6.37/38 and then drivers needed
> to be converted over to use it, which was completed for 3.1. Some
> drivers also worked around it on their own before the new
> infrastructure. So basically the more recent the kernel, the more
> likely it is work properly.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss