Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Simon Horman wrote: > Hi Jesse, > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 07:35:59AM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 4:04 AM, Brady Allen Johnson >> wrote: >> > I wanted to mention though,

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Jan Scheurich wrote: > 1. The pending question whether to model NSH headers as packet header match > fields, metadata fields, or both applies in particular to the MD2 TLVs. > > We have three main OpenFlow use cases for the MD2 TLVs: >

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

Hi, I agree that we should go ahead with implementing support for MD2 while we are doing NSH. There are planned use cases that will depend on MD2, like an SFF load-sharing between SF instances based on an entropy TLV option. But there are in fact a number of technical issues that need to be

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

To: Paul Quinn (paulq) Cc: dev@openvswitch.org; Manuel Buil; Wei Su (Su); Jiri Benc; László Sürü; Thomas F Herbert; nick.tausanovi...@netronome.com Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Paul Quinn (paulq) <pa...@cisco.

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Paul Quinn (paulq) wrote: > >> On Jul 14, 2016, at 11:39 AM, Jesse Gross wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Elzur, Uri wrote: >>> +1 on starting w MD Type = 1 >>> >>> Not sure I understand the

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

@openvswitch.org > Cc: Manuel Buil; László Sürü > Subject: RE: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header > Support > > Jan, although NSH isn't tunnel, but we still need to do some matches after > pop_nsh, this is similar to vxlan tunnel, we still can match vxlan

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

> On Jul 14, 2016, at 11:39 AM, Jesse Gross wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Elzur, Uri wrote: >> +1 on starting w MD Type = 1 >> >> Not sure I understand the concern expressed with " implementations that >> don't implement TLVs will become

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

m>; László Sürü <laszlo.s...@ericsson.com> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support It would be great if we could get guidance by the OVS committers on below question whether to model NSH fields as packet header match fields or as metada fields or both.

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

ch > Cc: dev@openvswitch.org > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header > Support > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Jan Scheurich <jan.scheur...@ericsson.com> > wrote: > > I hate to be pestering but I believe the answer to the question below wi

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Jan Scheurich wrote: > I hate to be pestering but I believe the answer to the question below will > have significant impact on the design of the NSH patch as well as the way SDN > controllers can use NSH. So could the OVS maintainers

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

I hate to be pestering but I believe the answer to the question below will have significant impact on the design of the NSH patch as well as the way SDN controllers can use NSH. So could the OVS maintainers please have a look and provide feedback? Thanks a lot, Jan > -Original

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

It would be great if we could get guidance by the OVS committers on below question whether to model NSH fields as packet header match fields or as metada fields or both. Right now patch v2 mixes those and uses the same set of NXM fields both when matching packet headers of an NSH packet and as

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 07:45:06AM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: > > > > Currently, struct tun_metadata in struct flow_tnl. > > > > /* Tunnel information used in flow key and metadata. */ > > struct flow_tnl { > > ovs_be32 ip_dst; > > struct in6_addr ipv6_dst; > > ovs_be32 ip_src; > >

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Elzur, Uri wrote: > Jesse > > So maybe it is just me, but I really don't get the similarity w IPv4 options. > Both Geneve and NSH have TLV options. I have not seen a definition of the > Geneve TLV format either (pls excuse me if I have

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 7:56 PM, Yang, Yi wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 07:22:39PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: >> >> >> >> In any case, I don't think this is a fundamental issue, just a matter >> >> of timing. Since the premise of the original question was that MD type >> >>

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

.com>; su@huawei.com; László Sürü <laszlo.s...@ericsson.com>; Paul Quinn (paulq) <pa...@cisco.com>; nick.tausanovi...@netronome.com Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support On 7/13/16 10:55 AM, Jiri Benc wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

> > Please see previous comments in this thread, such as this one: > http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2016-July/074980.html > We are trying to remove the dependency on Simon's patch set, but we have similar implementation for the datapath, this is duplicated effort. So we have to wait for

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 07:22:39PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: > >> > >> In any case, I don't think this is a fundamental issue, just a matter > >> of timing. Since the premise of the original question was that MD type > >> 2 shouldn't be too much additional work and the series is currently > >>

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Yang, Yi wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 09:59:34AM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Jiri Benc wrote: >> > On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:35:59 -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: >> >> I think history tells us

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 09:59:34AM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Jiri Benc wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:35:59 -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: > >> I think history tells us how this will end - similar to IPv4 options, > >> implementations that don't

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

The push_nsh action creates a non-Ethernet packet in the OF pipeline, which is not at all supported by OVS prior to Simon's patch. It is not good enough to promise that an SFC controller will always send a push_eth action right next to fix this. A new action in OVS must be sane in the sense

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

Please see previous comments in this thread, such as this one: http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2016-July/074980.html On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Brady Allen Johnson wrote: > Is the current implementation really dependent on Simon's patch? > > I

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

Is the current implementation really dependent on Simon's patch? I understood that the current implementation is for ethernet+NSH and VXLAN+ethernet+NSH which doesnt require Simon's patch. Simon's patch would be needed for VXLAN-GPE+NSH, which is not in this implementation. Maybe the authors

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Jiri Benc wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:35:59 -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: >> I think history tells us how this will end - similar to IPv4 options, >> implementations that don't implement TLVs will become deployed and >> then when there is a use

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

On 7/13/16 10:55 AM, Jiri Benc wrote: On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:35:59 -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: I think history tells us how this will end - similar to IPv4 options, implementations that don't implement TLVs will become deployed and then when there is a use for them it's no longer possible.

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:35:59 -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: > I think history tells us how this will end - similar to IPv4 options, > implementations that don't implement TLVs will become deployed and > then when there is a use for them it's no longer possible. Since I > don't want OVS to have a half

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 4:04 AM, Brady Allen Johnson wrote: > I wanted to mention though, currently the type 2 metadata (MD2) isnt a top > priority for us. It looks like its already been investigated how to use some > existing OVS TLV code to implement this, so

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

welcome. Regards, Jan -Original Message- From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@openvswitch.org] On Behalf Of Johnson Li Sent: Tuesday, 12 July, 2016 19:26 To:dev@openvswitch.org Subject: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support IETF draft at: https://tools.ietf.org/h

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

t,output:4 Any comments are welcome. Regards, Jan > -Original Message- > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@openvswitch.org] On Behalf Of Johnson Li > Sent: Tuesday, 12 July, 2016 19:26 > To: dev@openvswitch.org > Subject: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Se

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 01:25:45 +0800, Johnson Li wrote: > In order to support NSH without depending on Simon's patch, we > introduced new flow actions push_eth and pop_eth to support the > Ethernet as a NSH transport. That doesn't make any sense. Please build this on top of Simon's patchset. Jiri

Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

> -Original Message- > From: Li, Johnson > Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 1:26 AM > To: dev@openvswitch.org > Cc: Li, Johnson > Subject: [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support > > --- > Change Log: > V1->V2: 1. Add prototype for MD type 2 support.

[ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support

IETF draft at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-01 defines a new protocol named Network Service Header (NSH) for Service Function Chaining. The NSH format looks like below: +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Ver|O|C|R|R|R|R|R|R|Length |