[ovs-dev] [PATCH V2] Add tunnel key to Physical_Locator

[Ofer Ben-Yacov]

The tunnel key in decoupled from the actual implementation of the tunnel.
The only tunnel protocol that is currently supported in this schema is
VxLAN. (the encapsulation is set by enum with single value:
 vxlan_over_ipv4 ). This is fine and the new key field can be used to set
the VIN of the VxLAN tunnel. In the future, when the schema will have more
encapsulations (need to add more values to the encapsulation_type enum),
the key still will be used as all tunnels use some kind of key for
segmentation (NVGRE, Geneve or even MPLS label is a kind of a key). The key
is optional anyway so if someone will what to use the schema with a
key-less tunnel it still can be used.

I actually did not add something that was not thought before. If you look
at the hardware VTEP document (http://openvswitch.org/docs/vtep.5.pdf),
under Logical_Switch section it is written:

*Per Logical_Switch+Physical_Locator pair. That is, each logical switch may
be assigned a different tunnel key on every Physical_Locator. This model is
especially flexible. In this model, Physical_Locator carries the tunnel
key.*

Can you point me to where the version is set? I will change it to 1.5.0 as
you suggested.

We are using this new field to enable connection of multiple tunnels that
each use different tunnel key. We use it for inter-cloud connection. It is
a new feature that I'm adding to the L2 Gateway. You can see the spec here:

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/270786/

The new code depend on the ability to use different keys in multiple
tunnels in the same logical switch.

Ofer.


‫בתאריך יום ה׳, 4 בפבר׳ 2016 ב-1:42 מאת ‪Ben Pfaff‬‏ <‪blp at ovn.org‬‏>:‬

> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 02:36:56PM +0200, Ofer Ben Yacov wrote:
> > Add tunnel key to Physical_Locator to support different
> >  tunnel ID on different locators  on the same logical switch.
>
> This doesn't define any encapsulation that makes use of the new feature.
>
> This needs to also update the schema version, presumably to 1.5.0.
>
> The commit message is really sketchy.
>
> Are you working on some implementation?  What testing have you done?
>