Check my other email. Having a physical interface directly in the integration bridge will not work as expected. On Jun 28, 2016 5:45 PM, "Turbo Fredriksson" <turbo at bayour.com> wrote: > On Jun 29, 2016, at 12:03 AM, Turbo Fredriksson wrote: > > > Bridge br-tun > > fail_mode: secure > > Port patch-int > > Interface patch-int > > type: patch > > options: {peer=patch-tun} > > Looking at my own setup in more detail, I just noticed > this. > > "patch-int"? Shouldn't that be "patch-provider"?? > > > Bridge br-provider > > fail_mode: secure > > Port "qvo6a866c7f-2b" > > tag: 1 > > Interface "qvo6a866c7f-2b" > > Port patch-tun > > Interface patch-tun > > type: patch > > options: {peer=patch-int} > > .. because of this "patch-tun" in "br-provider"? > > > Port int-br-provider > > Interface int-br-provider > > type: patch > > options: {peer=phy-br-provider} > > And again, the word "int" (but that might be ok). > What is this port for? > -- > Life sucks and then you die > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack > Post to : openstack at lists.openstack.org > Unsubscribe : > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/attachments/20160628/a962c691/attachment.html>