From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: roopa Subject: Re: [PATCH WIP RFC 0/3] mpls: support for ler Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 07:16:08 -0700 Message-ID: <5571AF28.8000009@cumulusnetworks.com> References: <1433341306-29288-1-git-send-email-roopa@cumulusnetworks.com> <20150605091441.GA11896@pox.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ebiederm@xmission.com, rshearma@brocade.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Graf Return-path: Received: from mail-ie0-f175.google.com ([209.85.223.175]:33087 "EHLO mail-ie0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030184AbbFEOQM (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2015 10:16:12 -0400 Received: by iebgx4 with SMTP id gx4so58595418ieb.0 for ; Fri, 05 Jun 2015 07:16:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150605091441.GA11896@pox.localdomain> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 6/5/15, 2:14 AM, Thomas Graf wrote: > On 06/03/15 at 07:21am, Roopa Prabhu wrote: >> From: Roopa Prabhu >> >> This is still WIP and incomplete. >> Posting it here because of the other discussions >> happening around mpls ler in the context of Roberts >> code and I happened to mention this implementation. >> >> This was in response to earlier email thread with Eric on >> net-next of possibly using xfrm style stacked destination >> approach. >> >> I introduce a new set of tunnel ops for light weight >> tunnels (lwt), but this could be merged with the >> other ip_tunnels code if possible. >> >> I had this code for 3.2 kernel initially, and >> as I was pulling out code, I realize i had to separate >> out some other mpls code that i have been working on >> and quite likely this will not even compile. Sorry abt >> that. >> >> Signed-off-by: Roopa Prabhu > Thanks for posting these patches Roopa! > > I see that some of the edges are still a bit rough. In particular > the lack of sanity checking around type before indexing the array > with it ;-) Oh..., sorry you had to see that :) (In my defense, ...i did successfully get some packets into the mpls tunnel with this though! :) ) > No question that this would make a great optimization > on top of existing IP tunnels though! I think this is where Eric > was heading to and given this implementation, I'm perfectly fine > with it as it does not *require* to precompute the headers for all > encap types. > > This can be made compatible with the patches I have posted as well. > A simple flag in what you call rtencap could indicate whether to > perform the encap in the dst->output or merely attach the metadata > and forward it to RTA_OIF for postponed encapsulation. > > That way, if desirable by the user, the net_device can be omitted > which would suit Eric's architecture while we still also support > the traditional net_device model which provides stats and a shared > set of encapsulation parameters. It will also allow for bridges to > perform the encapsulation decision if needed and we can still get > rid of the OVS encapsulation special handling. yeah, that's a great idea. > > As I mentioned to Robert, the new RTA_ENCAP should be a list of > Netlink attributes from the beginning to make it extendible without > ever breaking user ABI. agreed. > > The most overlap seems to be with Robert's series. The direction > seems to be very similar. How do you want to proceed? Work on a > series together? I'm happy to rebase my series on top of both you > and Robert's work and make use of a new generic per nexthop > encapsulation API. Let me know how you guys want to proceed. Robert, pls let me know if you have a preference on how you want to proceed. One option is for me to use your git tree as a way to get my patches in. But, If we agree that we don't want to introduce a tunnel netdevice for mpls yet (which is our vote as well), then its probably better for me to rebase my changes on top of your series and re-submit (with proper attribution ofcourse). (Happy to take erics feedback as well here). Right now I am working on refining my patches and covering ipv6. I would be happy to make RTA_ENCAP nested...unless you would prefer to take that over. I have also been trying to see If i can reuse any infra from the existing ip_tunnel world. Thanks for the feedback Thomas!.