From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Pavel Fedin <p.fedin@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4 for 2.3] vhost-user live migration support
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 17:54:45 +0300
Message-ID: <011a01d1367f$5fe56270$1fb02750$@samsung.com>
References: <000001d133ed$b2446eb0$16cd4c10$@samsung.com>
 <20151211094934.GX29571@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <001c01d133fd$d3a7d870$7af78950$@samsung.com>
 <20151214035842.GB18437@pxdev.xzpeter.org>
 <00c401d13641$5e53cf20$1afb6d60$@samsung.com>
 <20151214090406.GC18437@pxdev.xzpeter.org>
 <00ec01d13654$5f904c20$1eb0e460$@samsung.com>
 <20151214120937.GC29571@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <20151214130022.GE18437@pxdev.xzpeter.org>
 <20151214132115.GE29571@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, 'Victor Kaplansky' <victork@redhat.com>,
 "'Michael S. Tsirkin'" <mst@redhat.com>
To: 'Yuanhan Liu' <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>, 'Peter Xu' <peterx@redhat.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mailout4.w1.samsung.com (mailout4.w1.samsung.com
 [210.118.77.14]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FF208E8E
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:54:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: from eucpsbgm1.samsung.com (unknown [203.254.199.244])
 by mailout4.w1.samsung.com
 (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.31.0 64bit (built May 5 2014))
 with ESMTP id <0NZC00EGIS3BVE30@mailout4.w1.samsung.com> for dev@dpdk.org;
 Mon, 14 Dec 2015 14:54:47 +0000 (GMT)
In-reply-to: <20151214132115.GE29571@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
Content-language: ru
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

 Hello!

> > I _guess_ the problem for ping might be: guest ARP entry for
> > 192.168.100.1 is not updated. Or say, after guest migrated to host2
> > from host1, guest is still trying to send packet to host1's NIC (no
> > one is telling it to update, right?), so no one is responding the
> > ping. When the entry is expired, guest will resend the ARP request,
> > and host2 will respond this time, with mac address on host2 provided
> > this time. After that, ping works again.
> 
> Peter,
> 
> Thanks for your input, and that sounds reasonable. You just reminded
> me that the host1's NIC is indeed different with host2's NIC: the ovs
> bridge mac address is different.

 Yes, this is indeed what is happening, and actually i already wrote about it. In wireshark it looks exactly like that: the some
PINGs are sent without replies, then the guest redoes ARP, PING replies resume.

Kind regards,
Pavel Fedin
Expert Engineer
Samsung Electronics Research center Russia