> On Jul 14, 2016, at 11:39 AM, Jesse Gross <je...@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Elzur, Uri <uri.el...@intel.com> wrote: >> +1 on starting w MD Type = 1 >> >> Not sure I understand the concern expressed with " implementations that >> don't implement TLVs will become deployed and then when there is a use for >> them it's no longer possible." - why will it not be possible to add MD >> Type=2 later? > > As I said, it's a classic problem with IP options. Classic enough that > people frequently content that TLVs are not usable at all because they > don't get implemented which then becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. >
Jesse, the issue with IPv4 options has nothing do the actual option(s) but rather the "cost" associated with the handling, particularly in hardware, of variable length packets. > I think I've been extremely clear on this matter. I also think that > I've been extremely consistent - I think I've said the same thing on > every review of this patch series, so it should not exactly be a > surprise. However, the bottom line is I want to see a complete > implementation of the protocol and not a half measure that will catch > people by surprise or limit future usage. That seems 100% reasonable > to me. The adopted NSH draft clearly states that type-1 support in mandatory, and that type-2 support is optional. As such the OVS patches are compliant. Having said that, the current code also supports skipping the type-2 based on the length of NSH conveyed in the first word of the header. This, I believe, constitutes support: type-2 NSH packets, if used, are supported: the type-2 info is skipped and OVS functions as expected. It appears that your definition of support differs from that, can you expand on it please? Thanks Paul _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
