> From: Jesse Gross [mailto:je...@kernel.org] > Sent: Wednesday, 24 August, 2016 04:48 > > >> I'm still not enthusiastic about having a combined push NSH/Ethernet > >> action. I don't think that it even really supports the full NSH use > >> case since at least some of the patches sent are not using VXLAN-GPE > >> but directly insert the header over Ethernet. I wouldn't want to introduce > >> an action that would immediately need to be replaced > since we won't be able to change any of the public interface semantics once > this goes in. > > > > I'm not enthusiastic either, but I think we should not block support for > > NSH until the packet-type aware pipeline is finally > implemented in OVS. One way of stressing the monolithic nature of these > actions could be to call them "push/pop_nsh_eth". That > would leave the names push/pop_nsh and push/pop_eth available for a modular > actions in the future. > > Ben mentioned that he had some comments on the "OVS philosophy" here vs. > OpenFlow, so that might affect things. Hopefully it will > end up simplifying things somewhat.
It would be really good to get Ben's input here! Perhaps I am looking at the problem too strictly from an OpenFlow perspective. > > As I think you can tell, I really want to avoid situations where we don't do > the right thing simply because of the time needed to > implement it - this is particularly true where the change is user-visible and > we'll have to live with the wart forever. I think there's been > an unfortunate amount of that with the NSH patchset in the past, so let's see > if we can find a clean way to handle this. I would love to see proposals for a clean way to model and implement this. The patches that I have seen are clearly not good enough. Thanks, Jan _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
