Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] openvswitch: New MPLS actions for layer 2 tunnelling

[Martin Varghese <martinvarghesenokia@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 10:15:19PM -0800, Pravin Shelar wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 4:02 PM Martin Varghese
> <martinvarghesenokia@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 01:22:56PM -0800, Pravin Shelar wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 12:17 AM Martin Varghese
> > > <martinvarghesenokia@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: Martin Varghese <martin.varghese@nokia.com>
> > > >
> > > > The existing PUSH MPLS & POP MPLS actions inserts & removes MPLS header
> > > > between ethernet header and the IP header. Though this behaviour is fine
> > > > for L3 VPN where an IP packet is encapsulated inside a MPLS tunnel, it
> > > > does not suffice the L2 VPN (l2 tunnelling) requirements. In L2 VPN
> > > > the MPLS header should encapsulate the ethernet packet.
> > > >
> > > > The new mpls actions PTAP_PUSH_MPLS & PTAP_POP_MPLS inserts and removes
> > > > MPLS header from start of the packet respectively.
> > > >
> > > > PTAP_PUSH_MPLS - Inserts MPLS header at the start of the packet.
> > > > @ethertype - Ethertype of MPLS header.
> > > >
> > > > PTAP_POP_MPLS - Removes MPLS header from the start of the packet.
> > > > @ethertype - Ethertype of next header following the popped MPLS header.
> > > >              Value 0 in ethertype indicates the tunnelled packet is
> > > >              ethernet.
> > > >
> > > Did you considered using existing MPLS action to handle L2 tunneling
> > > packet ? It can be done by adding another parameter to the MPLS
> > > actions.
> >
> 
> >
> >
> > Not really.
> >
> > Are you suggesting to extend the ovs_action_push_mpls and similarly for pop
> >
> > struct ovs_action_push_mpls {
> >         __be32 mpls_lse;
> >         __be16 mpls_ethertype; /* Either %ETH_P_MPLS_UC or %ETH_P_MPLS_MC */
> > +        bool l2_tunnel;
> > };
> >
> > Does not that break the compatibilty with the existing userspace
> > OVS ?
> >
> Right, extending this would not look good. I am fine with new action.
> But we can design this new action as superset of existing and PTAP
> functionality, This way in future we can deprecate existing MPLS
> action in favor of new action.
> I think if you add mac_len parameter for the action it would take case
> of both cases.
Yes i guess so.
On the similar lines i guess we dont need a new PTAP_POP action as the existing
pop action pops mpls header from the start of the packet if the skb->mac_len=0
We just neeed a add a special handling for ethertype 0 is the existing pop 
implementation