[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55FEDCFE.30506@colorado.edu>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 10:21:18 -0600
From: Matthew Monaco <Matthew.Monaco@...orado.EDU>
To: Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
Cc: Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: sr-iov and bridges (mlx4)
On 09/20/2015 05:01 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Matthew Monaco
> <Matthew.Monaco@...orado.edu> wrote:
> [...]
>> In all cases, VMs with SR-IOV work fine, IP on the host works fine, outbound
>> DHCP from the virtio VMs work fine, but inbound frames are not making it back to
>> the VM.
> [...]
>> Is there a know limitation of mixing SR-IOV and bridges in general? Does the
>> SR-IOV switch specific to the mlx4 hardware not work well with linux bridges? ...?
>
> It would be a bit hard for bridge based promiscuous environment to work OOB
> for one of the functions (PF or VF) in SRIOV, this is generic issue,
> and not related
> to specific vendor.
>
> You need to use the bridge (8) tool (part of iproute2) and add the P.V
> VM MACs to
> the PF interface as "self" see some slides (21/22/23) from netdev 0.1
> that deal with that
> https://netdev01.org/docs/netdev_tutorial_bridge_makita_150213.pdf
>
> Or.
>
> It also possible to mark one bridge port (the PF) as non-promiscuous,
> but I haven't
> played with that myself yet (slide 32), so can't just send you doing it...
>
Many thanks, that helps. Now to figure out the best approach for shoving this
into OpenStack =)
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists