From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: roopa Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v2 1/3] lwt: infrastructure to support light weight tunnels Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 19:48:49 -0700 Message-ID: <55877791.1030500@cumulusnetworks.com> References: <1434689355-4088-2-git-send-email-roopa@cumulusnetworks.com> <55842A93.2040607@brocade.com> <558431C3.5020703@cumulusnetworks.com> <5584507C.2000303@brocade.com> <5584609C.5020802@cumulusnetworks.com> <558461CB.3020408@brocade.com> <5585784D.3020809@cumulusnetworks.com> <20150621204044.GD4228@pox.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Robert Shearman , ebiederm@xmission.com, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Graf Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com ([209.85.220.41]:35979 "EHLO mail-pa0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752867AbbFVCsv (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Jun 2015 22:48:51 -0400 Received: by paceq1 with SMTP id eq1so99326387pac.3 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2015 19:48:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150621204044.GD4228@pox.localdomain> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 6/21/15, 1:40 PM, Thomas Graf wrote: > On 06/20/15 at 07:27am, roopa wrote: >> On 6/19/15, 11:39 AM, Robert Shearman wrote: >>> >>> Sorry for not being clear, but I meant that there would have to be >>> lwtunnel_skb_lwstate functions for ipv4 and ipv6 to match the output >>> functions. So in the vxlan use case where it's using a netdevice, how >>> would it determine which one to call? >> thanks for that clarification, and good point. I see some areas of the >> kernel checking for skb->protocol to do the conversion (something like >> below). I am guessing that is acceptable. >> if (skb->protocol == htons(ETH_P_IPV6)) >> struct rt6_info *rt6 = (struct rt6_info *)skb_dst(skb); > I'm not yet convinced that it makes sense to offer the no-netdevice > shortcut for VXLAN. I'm not convinced we need yet another VXLAN data > path. In fact, I'm trying to get rid of the OVS one for this specific > reason. > > I have no objection though if somebody comes up with an architecture > that can't just pass the required metadata between the namespaces and > do the actual encapsulation in a single net_device in the root/host > namespace. > > Either way, I thin it's fair to defer to this to a later point. We > don't need to solve this for the first iteration of MPLS and VXLAN > implementation. ack, thanks for your thoughts on this.