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

[Kyle Mestery (kmestery)]

On Feb 1, 2013, at 12:03 PM, Jesse Gross <jesse at nicira.com> wrote:
> 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.
>> 
>> Jesse:
>> 
>> 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.

Great, thanks!