From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Ahern Subject: Re: Flows! Offload them. Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 10:38:05 -0700 Message-ID: <54EF59FD.2030107@gmail.com> References: <20150226074214.GF2074@nanopsycho.orion> <20150226083758.GA15139@vergenet.net> <20150226091628.GA4059@nanopsycho.orion> <20150226133326.GC23050@casper.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Simon Horman , netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, nhorman@tuxdriver.com, andy@greyhouse.net, dborkman@redhat.com, ogerlitz@mellanox.com, jesse@nicira.com, jpettit@nicira.com, joestringer@nicira.com, john.r.fastabend@intel.com, jhs@mojatatu.com, sfeldma@gmail.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com, linville@tuxdriver.com, shrijeet@gmail.com, gospo@cumulusnetworks.com, bcrl@kvack.org To: Thomas Graf , Jiri Pirko Return-path: Received: from mail-ie0-f170.google.com ([209.85.223.170]:40319 "EHLO mail-ie0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753733AbbBZRiH (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2015 12:38:07 -0500 Received: by iebtr6 with SMTP id tr6so18310843ieb.7 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 09:38:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20150226133326.GC23050@casper.infradead.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2/26/15 6:33 AM, Thomas Graf wrote: > E.g. A VRF in software would make use of net namespaces which holds > tenant specific ACLs, routes and QoS settings. A separate action > would fwd packets to the namespace. Easy and straight forward in > software. namespace == L1 separation VRF == L3 separation Why is there an insistence that an L1 construct is appropriate for L3 isolation? Has anyone other than 6wind actually done a 1000+ VRFs with the Linux stack? David