[ovs-dev] [PATCH 0/2] Add support for LISP into Open vSwitch

Kyle Mestery (kmestery) kmestery at cisco.com
Fri Feb 1 14:30:08 UTC 2013

On Jan 29, 2013, at 9:13 PM, Kyle Mestery (kmestery) <kmestery at cisco.com> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2013, at 6:47 PM, Jesse Gross <jesse at nicira.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Kyle Mestery (kmestery)
>> <kmestery at cisco.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 29, 2013, at 5:19 PM, Jesse Gross <jesse at nicira.com> wrote:
>>>> The other area that I'm somewhat concerned about is with upstreaming.
>>>> Once we get OVS for GRE and VXLAN upstream (which Pravin is working on
>>>> now), the delta between the out of tree module and in tree module will
>>>> be very small.  I'd like to keep on decreasing the differences but we
>>>> may want to wait a little while for LISP until we get down further
>>>> down your plan.
>>> Is the goal to eventually not require the out of tree module? If that's the
>>> case, then perhaps we need to look at adding LISP support upstream into
>>> Linux in parallel to the plan above.
>> Yes, I'd like to get to the point where the out of tree module is
>> basically just a backported version of the upstream module and new
>> things go into both roughly simultaneously.  With the exception of
>> tunneling related things, this should already be true.
> Awesome, this is a very good goal to have.
>> It would be great if you guys can think start thinking about the best
>> way to integrate LISP with upstream since it is a little different
>> from the other tunnel types.  However, I don't want to predicate LISP
>> in OVS on being upstream since the tunnel infrastructure needs to be
>> upstreamed first.  Once that happens it should be easier to add
>> additional protocols.
> Yes, we'll start thinking about this as well. But in the meantime, we'll keep
> addressing comments you have on the existing patch, and work to integrate
> LISP in OVS per the plan we sent out.


I just wanted some clarification here. Do you plan to still review the LISP changes
as is with the static MAC as we have it? I wanted to clarify we think the changes
around OVS and ethernet are not required for the existing LISP patch to go upstream
into OVS. We think they can be done in parallel with the other work, but should
not limit the current, working LISP tunnel code from going upstream.

What do you think?


> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev at openvswitch.org
> http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

More information about the dev mailing list