From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sridhar Samudrala Subject: Re: [PATCH net] vxlan: revert per-vxlan port Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 15:35:57 -0700 Message-ID: <519E99CD.1030500@gmail.com> References: <20130520103017.054ae605@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> <20130520113000.0057ce90@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> <20130522.150830.1305371698781503084.davem@davemloft.net> <20130522173954.7f75f62d@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> <20130523100854.6c9749d6@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> <20130523121804.6b7450a3@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Stephen Hemminger , David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org To: David Stevens Return-path: Received: from mail-ob0-f173.google.com ([209.85.214.173]:54847 "EHLO mail-ob0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759752Ab3EWWf6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 May 2013 18:35:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 5/23/2013 1:06 PM, David Stevens wrote: > Stephen Hemminger wrote on 05/23/2013 > 03:18:04 PM: > > >> With the patch davem already included, the dstport is enough >> to add additional listener. > If you're saying that using the dstport changes the > listen port, or adds another listen port, then I think that > behaviour is wrong and should be reverted. I agree that using 'dstport' option to also create a socket and binding to that port for receives is confusing. As the name suggests, it should only be used as a default dst port for fdb entries. > An admin should be able to specify the source and destination > ports independently of each other. If dstport has a side-effect that > is unrelated to changing the destination port, that's what I'd call > "confusing." > IMHO, "port" should change the listen port (only) and "dstport" > should change the send port (only). And yes, both of those should allow > multiple ports, and destinations. So, binding should be a list of > the form: "[IP:]port[,[IP:]port]*" and destinations should be the same > as in the fdb, allowing multiple destinations and different ports, and > different vni's. It should be simply a "default" fdb entry in all > respects. Currently 'port' option takes 2 values that indicate the range of ports that can be used as source port when sending vxlan packets. So we don't have a good way to specify listening port when creating a vxlan device using the existing options. It may be a good idea to revert dstport in linux-3.10 and multiple listening ports patch in net-next and re-implement them with 2 different options that can take a list of ports/addresses as David suggested. Thanks Sridhar