doc: VXLAN in IPv6 is only supported for kernel versions >=4.19.1 or redhat kernel version >= 4.18.0

[blue-troy]

Product Version(s):

Issue: projectcalico/calico#7251 projectcalico/calico#6273 projectcalico/calico#6877

Link to docs preview:

SME review:

• An SME has approved this change.

DOCS review:

• A member of the docs team has approved this change.

Additional information:

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview succeeded! Please check the logs for test failures which will cause the production (main) build to fail.

Built without sensitive environment variables

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	5c211c2
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/tigera/deploys/6422a61355f3a5000811f7a1
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-515--tigera.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site settings.

[blue-troy]

I have created a PR in calico projectcalico/calico#7505.

I think this kernel commit resolved our issue.

I have test much kernel version and hedhat kernel versions, kernel versions >=4.19.1 or redhat kernel version >= 4.18.0 contain this commit . In my test Kernel version >=4.19.1 or redhat kernel version >= 4.18.0 cross node container network succeed, kernel versions lower than my description fails.

[ctauchen]

@tigera/core-maintainers Review please?

[coutinhop]

I'm not sure about including specifics for redhat. How about every other kernel variation? @blue-troy in projectcalico/calico#7505 you mentioned that https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=6a4aa53a94615ab4a8cf66b24e3780719378a059 fixes the issue you were having, right? That doesn't seem VXLAN specific, couldn't that bug happen regardless of encap? @mgleung and @caseydavenport, what's your opinion on mentioning the fix commit (or something to that effect), or mentioning (or not) a redhat kernel version?

[blue-troy]

Year, then kernel include that commit fixs me issue in both redhat kernel and official kernel. I'm not currently using any other kernels such as Debian, and haven't tested them. I think the completeness of the documentation is quite important, and mentioning here may help others and avoid wasting several workdays for them. If other people have other kernel variations, we can continue to supplement them later. Having a comprehensive documentation is not a bad thing.

[coutinhop]

LGTM

[bmckercher123]

The change looks good, but is this only for OSS latest/3.26? Does it also apply to CE and CC? And if CE and CC, is it only latest? If not, the standard is to change latest minus 1 version.

[coutinhop]

The change looks good, but is this only for OSS latest/3.26? Does it also apply to CE and CC? And if CE and CC, is it only latest? If not, the standard is to change latest minus 1 version.

Thanks @bmckercher123! This would apply everywhere (OSS/EE/CC at all versions we maintain), as this is a docs enhancement to better illustrate the linux kernels on which this feature is supported...

[bmckercher123]

For this PR, let's do the minimal and I'll create a separate PR for the rest:

• Calico/next = DONE
• Calico - add to 3.25
• Calico Enterprise - add to next and 3.16
• Calico Cloud - add to next and 3.16

[bmckercher123]

Approved. We will open a separate ticket to address these changes in other docs. Thanks again for your contribution @blue-troy!