On 8/24/2016 12:58 PM, Maxime Coquelin wrote: > > > On 08/18/2016 04:35 AM, Tan, Jianfeng wrote: >> Hi Maxime, >> >> On 8/17/2016 7:18 PM, Maxime Coquelin wrote: >>> Hi Jianfeng, >>> >>> On 08/17/2016 04:33 AM, Tan, Jianfeng wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Please review below proposal of Pankaj and myself after an offline >>>> discussion. (Pankaj, please correct me if I'm going somewhere wrong). >>>> >>>> a. Remove HW dependent option, --strip-vlan, because different kinds of >>>> NICs behave differently. It's a bug fix. >>>> b. Abstract switching logic into a framework, so that we can develop >>>> different kinds of switching logics. In this phase, we will have two >>>> switching logics: (1) a simple software-based mac learning switching; >>>> (2) VMDQ based switching. Any other advanced switching logics can be >>>> proposed based on this framework. >>>> c. Merge tep_termination example vxlan as a switching logic of the >>>> framework. >>> >>> I was also thinking of making physical port optional and add MAC >>> learning, >>> so this is all good for me. >> >> To make it clear, we are not proposing to eliminate physical port, >> instead, we just eliminate the binding of VMDQ and virtio ports, >> superseding it with a MAC learning switching. >> >>> >>> Let me know if I can help in implementation, I'll be happy to >>> contribute. >> >> Thank you for participating. Currently, I'm working on item a (will be a >> quick and simple fix). Pankaj is working on item b (which would be a >> huge change). Item c is depending on item b. So let's wait RFC patch >> from Pankaj and see what we can help. > > Pankaj, so I organize myself , do you have an idea of when the RFC > patch will be available?
I am almost finishing the first version of RFC patch set, hoping to send it today itself. Thanks, Pankaj > > Thanks, > Maxime >
