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 can verify this.
Regards,
Brady
On 13/07/16 18:59, Jesse Gross wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Jiri Benc <jb...@redhat.com> 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. Since I
don't want OVS to have a half implementation or contribute to this
issue, I'd like to see the whole protocol implemented before I apply
anything.
I see a big difference between this and IPv4. While in IPv4, the
options are extension to existing headers, here we're talking about a
completely different payload. It's more comparable to http vs. ftp (of
course, it's a poor comparison, but I hope it illustrates at least a
bit what I mean).
If NSH takes off (and it's a big "if" in my opinion), it's also well
possible we'll see more metadata types. The spec is pretty much open to
this. Obviously, the authors are aware of that and type 2 is optional.
As I guess will be type 3 and type 4 and whatever.
It's pretty much inevitable that applications and deployments built
around MD type 1 won't support MD type 2. And vice versa. This is
regardless whether ovs supports MD type 2 or not. They're just a
different protocol.
In my opinion, starting with MD type 1 is a good way to reduce the
initial scope. I see no problem with adding MD type 2 later.
I understand what you are saying but I'm not sure that I agree that
the two metadata types should be viewed as essentially independent
protocols. I guess it's probably also pretty unlikely that additional
metadata types will be created in the future.
If you look at discussions in the IETF and other places, it seems like
a frequent response to questions about MD type 1's design is that any
limitations can be handled with type 2. So to me this looks like the
two pieces are interrelated and the situation is quite similar to
IPv4.
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
dependent on Simon's patches, it seems like now might be a good time
for the authors to look into implementing this.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
