From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robert Shearman Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v2 0/3] light weight tunnel infrastructure and driver Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 15:38:36 +0100 Message-ID: <5584296C.1080108@brocade.com> References: <1434689355-4088-1-git-send-email-roopa@cumulusnetworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , To: Roopa Prabhu , , Return-path: Received: from mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com ([67.231.152.113]:29322 "EHLO mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751391AbbFSOiv (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Jun 2015 10:38:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1434689355-4088-1-git-send-email-roopa@cumulusnetworks.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 19/06/15 05:49, Roopa Prabhu wrote: > From: Roopa Prabhu > > This series implements infrastructure for light weight tunnels to support > mpls label edge routers (ie mpls ip tunnels). As previously discussed > having netdevices will not scale. Hence this series introduces new RTA_ENCAP* > attributes to attach encap information with routes (following suggestion > from Eric Biederman). Looks promising, thanks for posting this series Roopa! > > The first patch introduces an infrastructure to support light weight tunnels > that dont have netdevices. The infrastructure allows tunnel drivers > to register handlers to parse and build tunnel encap data which can be attached > to each route nexthop. > > The second patch adds support in ipv4 fib to carry such light weight tunnel > encap data. I presume this isn't ready to be merged until IPv6 is done, right? > > The third patch implements mpls ip tunnels using this light weight tunnel > infrastructure. > > Could not think of a better name, so, it is 'lwt' for 'light weight tunnels' > for now. I can't think of a better name either. Thanks, Rob