[ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

Elzur, Uri uri.elzur at intel.com
Thu Jul 14 05:44:34 UTC 2016


+1 on starting w MD Type = 1

Not sure I understand the concern expressed with " implementations that don't implement TLVs will become deployed and  then when there is a use for them it's no longer possible." - why will it not be possible to add MD Type=2 later?

Thx

Uri (“Oo-Ree”)
C: 949-378-7568


-----Original Message-----
From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at openvswitch.org] On Behalf Of Thomas F Herbert
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 8:03 AM
To: Jiri Benc <jbenc at redhat.com>; Jesse Gross <jesse at kernel.org>
Cc: dev at openvswitch.org; Manuel Buil <manuel.buil at ericsson.com>; su.wei at huawei.com; László Sürü <laszlo.suru at ericsson.com>; Paul Quinn (paulq) <paulq at cisco.com>; nick.tausanovitch at netronome.com
Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support



On 7/13/16 10:55 AM, Jiri Benc wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:35:59 -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> I think history tells us how this will end - similar to IPv4 options, 
>> implementations that don't implement TLVs will become deployed and 
>> then when there is a use for them it's no longer possible. Since I 
>> don't want OVS to have a half implementation or contribute to this 
>> issue, I'd like to see the whole protocol implemented before I apply 
>> anything.
> I see a big difference between this and IPv4. While in IPv4, the 
> options are extension to existing headers, here we're talking about a 
> completely different payload. It's more comparable to http vs. ftp (of 
> course, it's a poor comparison, but I hope it illustrates at least a 
> bit what I mean).
>
> If NSH takes off (and it's a big "if" in my opinion), it's also well 
> possible we'll see more metadata types. The spec is pretty much open 
> to this. Obviously, the authors are aware of that and type 2 is optional.
> As I guess will be type 3 and type 4 and whatever.
>
> It's pretty much inevitable that applications and deployments built 
> around MD type 1 won't support MD type 2. And vice versa. This is 
> regardless whether ovs supports MD type 2 or not. They're just a 
> different protocol.
>
> In my opinion, starting with MD type 1 is a good way to reduce the 
> initial scope. I see no problem with adding MD type 2 later.
+1
>
>   Jiri

--
*Thomas F Herbert*
SDN Group
Office of Technology
*Red Hat*
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev at openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev


More information about the dev mailing list