* NVGRE for Linux @ 2013-06-10 15:21 Daniel Baluta 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread From: Daniel Baluta @ 2013-06-10 15:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: netdev; +Cc: shemminger Hi, Is there anyone working on implementing NVGRE [1] in Linux kernel? A significant part of the code can be borrowed from VXLAN [2] (netlink ops, fdb ops), while another important part (packet reception/transmission) is based on GRE tunneling code [3]. Is this approach correct? Any suggestions are welcomed. thanks, Daniel. [1] http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sridharan-virtualization-nvgre/ [2] drivers/net/vxlan.c [3] net/ipv4/ip_gre.c ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <1902752B0C92F943AB7EA9EE13E2DEEC126A7CC8B8@HQ1-EXCH02.corp.brocade.com>]
[parent not found: <20130610094640.4d3fa0a2@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net>]
* Re: NVGRE for Linux [not found] ` <20130610094640.4d3fa0a2@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> @ 2013-06-11 13:23 ` Daniel Baluta 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread From: Daniel Baluta @ 2013-06-11 13:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Hemminger; +Cc: netdev On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:21:49 -0700 > Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Is there anyone working on implementing NVGRE [1] in Linux kernel? >> >> A significant part of the code can be borrowed from VXLAN [2] (netlink >> ops, fdb ops), >> while another important part (packet reception/transmission) is based >> on GRE tunneling code [3]. >> >> Is this approach correct? Any suggestions are welcomed. >> >> thanks, >> Daniel. >> >> [1] http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sridharan-virtualization-nvgre/ >> [2] drivers/net/vxlan.c >> [3] net/ipv4/ip_gre.c > > Packet transmission is not a problem the existing GRE provides more the necessary decode/encode. > The problem problem is that you would need a management entity. Most of the interesting bits > for connecting with real world clouds like Azure remain unspecified in RFC. That's right. The RFC defers a lot of important details for the next version (e.g 4.4 Address/Policy Management ). For the moment, I will try to experiment with statically defined fdbs. Thanks! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-06-11 13:23 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-06-10 15:21 NVGRE for Linux Daniel Baluta
[not found] <1902752B0C92F943AB7EA9EE13E2DEEC126A7CC8B8@HQ1-EXCH02.corp.brocade.com>
[not found] ` <20130610094640.4d3fa0a2@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net>
2013-06-11 13:23 ` Daniel Baluta
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).