commit 1a189c814d4eb132a661fa7f87ef7227504df78e
Author: Naveen N <email address hidden>
Date: Tue Dec 9 01:16:19 2014 -0800
* In case of inline service instance, VRF translate action would specify
the vrf in which route lookup happens, this translated VRF might not
have the local vm peer path, since control node would have leaked the
routes.
In this case with ecmp, where one SI resides locally and other SI
instance is on remote compute node, both forward flow and reverse flow
should have the key set to policy enabled nexthop of the interface.
For picking the reverse flow key, we were looking inside the composite
NH and getting interface NH, but this interface NH would be policy
disabled, hence reverse flow key calculated was wrong.
Correcting the same
Closes-bug:#1394089
Reviewed: https:/ /review. opencontrail. org/5426 github. org/Juniper/ contrail- controller/ commit/ 1a189c814d4eb13 2a661fa7f87ef72 27504df78e
Committed: http://
Submitter: Zuul
Branch: R2.0
commit 1a189c814d4eb13 2a661fa7f87ef72 27504df78e
Author: Naveen N <email address hidden>
Date: Tue Dec 9 01:16:19 2014 -0800
* In case of inline service instance, VRF translate action would specify
the vrf in which route lookup happens, this translated VRF might not
have the local vm peer path, since control node would have leaked the
routes.
In this case with ecmp, where one SI resides locally and other SI
instance is on remote compute node, both forward flow and reverse flow
should have the key set to policy enabled nexthop of the interface.
For picking the reverse flow key, we were looking inside the composite
NH and getting interface NH, but this interface NH would be policy
disabled, hence reverse flow key calculated was wrong.
Correcting the same
Closes-bug:#1394089
Change-Id: I74ee5c6506a1c9 5ed796a12932c1e a18a4acc4fd