[ovs-dev] [PATCH 0/2] Add support for LISP into Open vSwitch
jesse at nicira.com
Fri Feb 1 18:03:00 UTC 2013
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Kyle Mestery (kmestery)
<kmestery at cisco.com> wrote:
> 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?
Yes, I'm planning on looking at the patch that you posted. I've been
trying to hunt down some bugs, which is why I haven't looked at it
yet, but I should get to it soon.
More information about the dev