From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Graf Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] vxlan: Eliminate dependency on UDP socket in transmit path Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 18:13:35 +0000 Message-ID: <20150120181335.GL20315@casper.infradead.org> References: <1421518700-22460-1-git-send-email-therbert@google.com> <1421518700-22460-3-git-send-email-therbert@google.com> <20150119085938.GG20315@casper.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , Linux Netdev List To: Tom Herbert Return-path: Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:33077 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751241AbbATSNg (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:13:36 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 01/20/15 at 09:29am, Tom Herbert wrote: > I didn't see any reason to preclude that, if it needs to be symmetric > in that case it can be forced at the configuration. Being able to > receive RCO but not have to send it to certain peers is important use > case. You may want to consider this also for GBP if there are cases > where we accept GBP from different peers, but only send it to certain > ones. I think asymmetric configurations are fine, in particular receive-only. I was reluctant to the send-only scenario initially as I would expect a VTEP sending RCO frames on UDP dport 8472 to also always be able to accept RCO frames on that port. I can't come up with any specific cases where this would lead to problems though so I have no objections. As for GBP, as processing of the policy group requires additional iptables or OVS rules anyway, such behaviour would be implemented in those rules by either ignoring the mark or dropping such frames.