> On Apr 28, 2015, at 5:21 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 03:53:03PM -0400, Russell Bryant wrote: >> >> The code here looks correct and I also tested it. I was just wondering >> if you could comment on the choice of a 16 bit integer here instead of a >> UUID. My guess is that it has to do with where this ID will be used in >> a tunnel protocol, but it might be nice to capture that somewhere. > > Thanks for the question, I used it to improve the documentation to: > > <column name="tunnel_key"> > A number that represents the logical port in the IDs carried within
"IDs" sounds a bit strange to me. What about "metadata"? Unfortunately, there's no consistent way to refer to those bits, so my suggestion may not be an improvement. > tunnel protocol packets. (This avoids wasting space for a whole UUID in > tunneled packets. It allows OVN to support encapsulations that cannot > fit an entire UUID in their tunnel keys.) I think the second sentence in the parenthetical section would be clearer if it started with "Also". --Justin _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
