[ovs-dev] [PATCH v3 3/3] datapath: add layer 3 flow/port support

Jesse Gross jesse at nicira.com
Tue Jul 1 15:39:01 UTC 2014


On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Lori Jakab <lojakab at cisco.com> wrote:
> On 6/27/14, 4:25 PM, Lori Jakab wrote:
>>
>> On 6/25/14, 6:58 PM, Lori Jakab wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/25/14, 5:19 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Jesse Gross <jesse at nicira.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Lori Jakab <lojakab at cisco.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Jesse,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/23/14, 2:07 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Lori Jakab <lojakab at cisco.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/21/14, 4:10 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 7:02 AM, Lorand Jakab <lojakab at cisco.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Implementation of the pop_eth and push_eth actions in the kernel,
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> layer 3 flow support.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Lorand Jakab <lojakab at cisco.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lori, can you take a look at the thread with Thomas Morin and see
>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>> the outcome is reasonable to you? It seems like we've reached a
>>>>>>>>> conclusion at this point.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have been following that thread, and I only submitted version 3 of
>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>> patches since you suggested at some point to include the Ethertype
>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>> absolutely necessary.  Based on our previous discussion, it wasn't
>>>>>>>> absolutely necessary for LISP.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By outcome, I assume you mean this message:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2014-May/040291.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In that case, please confirm my interpretation of "unconditionally
>>>>>>>> include
>>>>>>>> it when it is part of the protocol" for LISP encapsulated packets:
>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> LISP encapsulation header doesn't contain the Ethertype of the
>>>>>>>> packet
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> follows and it can be inferred from the first attribute in the
>>>>>>>> packet
>>>>>>>> (which
>>>>>>>> can only be either IPv4 or IPv6), the Ethertype should not be
>>>>>>>> included.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, what you have looks conceptually right. I've been waiting until
>>>>>>> the other thread concludes to look at the patch in more detail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that I think we can consider the other thread concluded, can you
>>>>>> please
>>>>>> take a look at the patch?  In my understanding, the conclusion was
>>>>>> that LISP
>>>>>> as-is should not send Ethertype information over Netlink, not even in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> tunnel metadata, since the protocol itself doesn't send it on the
>>>>>> wire.
>>>>>> Once we implement GPE (see below), we can change that for GPE-enabled
>>>>>> LISP
>>>>>> tunnels.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, it seems like the we're all set on this issue. I'll take a look
>>>>> at the patch tomorrow.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Lori,
>>>>
>>>> Would you mind sending out a rebased version of this series?
>>>
>>>
>>> I rebased it, but due to recent changes on master the patches don't work
>>> anymore :(  I've been hunting the cause today to no avail. I'll send a new
>>> version as soon as I sort it out.
>>
>>
>> Please find the rebased version here:
>>
>>     http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2014-June/042223.html
>
>
> With recent changes, rebasing of v4 against master doesn't work without
> conflict resolution.  I maintain a current version on Github, which I rebase
> and test daily, if you want to apply my work cleanly to your tree for
> testing:
>
>     https://github.com/ljakab/openvswitch.git l3_v5

Thanks - I have the patch applied to master from the time that you
sent it out that I'm using for review but this is helpful as well.



More information about the dev mailing list