From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Graf Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2] vxlan: allow specifying multiple default destinations Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 12:44:24 +0100 Message-ID: <20130530114424.GC10532@casper.infradead.org> References: <1369821617-29098-1-git-send-email-mike.rapoport@ravellosystems.com> <1369821617-29098-4-git-send-email-mike.rapoport@ravellosystems.com> <20130529155625.2ee5f6bb@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Stephen Hemminger , Cong Wang , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Mike Rapoport Return-path: Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:55749 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751474Ab3E3Lo0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 May 2013 07:44:26 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 05/30/13 at 11:42am, Mike Rapoport wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:56 AM, Stephen Hemminger > wrote: > > On Wed, 29 May 2013 13:52:55 +0300 > > Mike Rapoport wrote: > >> Frankly, I had a long hesitation about the userspace implementation. > >> From one side it seems very logical to use ip/iplink_vxlan for vxlan > >> device manipulations. Moreover, since the remotes are used pretty much > >> the same way as the group address, adding the remotes management to > >> ip/iplink_vxlan makes a lot of sense. Besides, creation of stand alone > >> tool for remote list manipulation in vxlan seemed to me little bit far > >> fetched. > >> > >> On the other hand, I quite agree with you that > >> ip link add vxlan0 ... dstadd 192.168.1.1 > >> or > >> ip link set vxlan0 ... dstdel 192.168.1.1 > >> looks weird at least. > > > > Don't like add/delete semantics here either. > > Maybe replace or modify, > > I think that replace or modify do not express the actual operation > meaning. My intention with dstadd was "add remote host X to > pseudo-multicast group". Replace/modify maybe nice to have features to > avoid doing delete+ add. The alternative would be to require iproute2 to always provide the full list of remote addresses like we do we route nexthops. I do like the add/del though and don't see a problem with requiring an ''ip link set [..] dstadd/dstdel'' > > or has this grown enough that having its own > > command line tool "vxlan ..." makes sense? > > Say, misc/vxlan that will handle remote destinations management? Or > should it take care of some vxlan parameters currently implemented in > ip/iplink_vxlan and bridge/fdb? What do we gain from a separate tool?