Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

  • Consider case where VM1 (assume with IP 10.1.1.20) in tier1 running on host 1, wants to communicate with  VM1 VM1 (10.1.2.30) in tier 2 running on host 2. sequence of flow would be:
    • 10.1.1.20 sends ARP request for 10.1.1.1 (gateway for tier1)
    • VPC VR sends ARP response with MAC address (say 3c:07:54:4a:07:8f) on which 10.1.1.1 can be reached
    • 10.1.1.20 sends packet to 10.1.2.30 with ethernet destination 3c:07:54:4a:07:8f
    • flow rule on tier 1 bridge on host 1, over rides the default flow (normal l2 switching) and sends the packet on patch port
    • logical router created for VPC on host 1 receives packet on patch port 1. logical router does route look up (flow table 1 action) and does ingress and egress ACL's and modifies source mac address with mac address of 10.1.2.1 and modifies destination mac address with mac address of 10.1.2.30 and sends packet on patch port2.
    • tier 2 bridge on host 1 receives packet on patch port, does a mac lookup.
    • if the destination mac address is found, then sends packet on the port else floods packets on all the ports
    • tier 2 bridge on host 2 receives packet and forward to VM1. 
  • Consider case where VM3 (assume IP with 10.1.1.30) in tier 1 running on host 3 wants to communicate with VM1 in tier 2 running on host 2. Sequence of flow would be:
    • 10.1.1.30 sends are request for 10.1.1.1
    • VPC VR sends ARP response with MAC address (say 3c:07:54:4a:07:8f) on which 10.1.1.1 can be reached
    • 10.1.1.30 sends packet to 10.1.2.30 with ethernet destination 3c:07:54:4a:07:8f
    • VPC VR receives packet does a route look up, sends packets out on to tier 2 bridge on host 3, after modifying the packets source and destination mac address with that of 10.1.2.1 and mac address at which 10.1.2.30 is present (possibly after ARP resolution)
    • tier 2 bridge on host 2 receives packet and forward to VM1.  

Architecture & Design description

 

 

Fall back approach:

Achieving distributed routing and network ACL, would need distributed configuration. Given the scale of changes that would involve  

Architecture & Design description

dits very likely that configuration of switches and flow rules may no