From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sridhar Samudrala Subject: Re: [PATCH net] vxlan: revert per-vxlan port Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 16:59:44 -0700 Message-ID: <519AB8F0.7060003@gmail.com> References: <20130520103017.054ae605@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> <20130520113000.0057ce90@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Stevens , David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from mail-oa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.219.46]:63357 "EHLO mail-oa0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751648Ab3ETX7r (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 May 2013 19:59:47 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130520113000.0057ce90@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 5/20/2013 11:30 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:15:59 -0400 > David Stevens wrote: > >>> From: Stephen Hemminger >> >>> \This commit 823aa873bc782f1c51b1ce8ec6da7cfcaf93836e >>> Author: stephen hemminger >>> Date: Sat Apr 27 11:31:57 2013 +0000 >>> >>> vxlan: allow choosing destination port per vxlan >>> >>> is broken revert it. The change allowed setting per port for transmit >>> but did not add additional listening sockets, which made any vxlan's >>> defined with non-default port send only. >> This allows you to specify a different default port for >> transmits, which is what you want to do if your own instance >> of VXLAN is the odd one. I don't see any requirement for multiple >> listen ports for that to be useful, since those sending to you >> can have complete fdb tables even if the local instance doesn't >> and relies on the default. Not to mention using an agent to >> fill the fdb triggered by packets sent to the default, so the >> receiver is not necessarily even a VXLAN instance. The receiver >> side and transmit side ports can be completely independent of >> each other, as in any other client-server system. > Vxlan's are a weird beast. They can be viewed as either bridge like > entities or tunnel like entities. I view them more as bridge type > devices where user configures two hosts with equivalent values and > they learn about each other. In that case the code in 3.10 is broken; > but the version with the learning in net-next works. > > Your view is that VXLAN's are more like tunnels, where each host > has static entries to know about every other host. In that mode, > 3.10 is useable, but the same effect can be had by defining static > neighbour entries. how can we send to a different dst port using static neighbor entries? Thanks Sridhar