Re: [RFC net-next 3/3] mpls: new ipmpls device for encapsulating IP packets as mpls

Eric W. Biederman
2015-06-02T23:28:53Z

Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch> writes:

> On 06/02/15 at 01:26pm, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> What we really want here is xfrm-lite. By lite I mean the tunnel
>> selection criteria is simple enough that it fits into the normal
>> routing table instead of having to do weird flow based magic that
>> is rarely needed.
>>
>> I believe what we want are the xfrm stacking of dst entries.
>
> I assume you are referring to reusing the selector and stacked
> dst. I considered that for the transmit side.
>
> Can you elaborate on this some more? How would this look like
> for the specific case of VXLAN? Any thoughts on the receive
> side? You also mention that you dislike the net_device approach.
> What do you suggest instead? The encapsulation is often postponed
> to after the packet is fully constructed. Where should it get
> hooked into?

Thomas I may have misunderstood what you are trying to do.

Is what you were aiming for roughly the existing RTA_FLOW so you can
transmit packets out one network device and have enough information to
know which of a set of tunnels of a given type you want the packets go
into?

Eric