It's fine with me to solve Ethernet encapsulation using push and pop actions, but I don't see why L2-in-L3 use of NSH should be any different from any other tunnel format.
On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 02:22:39PM +0000, Jan Scheurich wrote: > Thanks Ben, > > I understood the conclusion of the earlier NSH discussions around November > last year (e.g. > http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2015-November/061933.html and > http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2015-November/061921.html) was to > separate NSH encapsulation from the underlying transport tunnels like > VXLAN-GPE and handle push/pop_nsh in OpenFlow. > > The biggest issue for modelling NSH tunnels as tunnel ports is that the SFC > controller must be able to send the NSH packets with Ethernet transport > encapsulation out (to a VM) on a well-defined OF port. That basically rules > out OVS tunnel ports for this use case as there is no outer IP layer and we > cannot rely on the host kernel stack to route tunnel packets. > > I therefore believe we should stick to the agreed approach and solve the > conceptual difficulties with push/pop_nsh actions. > > My preference would be to keep it simple for now and stay on the ground of > the all-Ethernet pipeline. We can refine this once OVS implements support for > packet type-aware pipeline or is generalized otherwise, e.g. when introducing > support for P4. > > BR, Jan > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ben Pfaff [mailto:b...@ovn.org] > > Sent: Tuesday, 06 September, 2016 16:31 > > To: Jesse Gross > > Cc: Jan Scheurich; Li, Johnson; Simon Horman; dev@openvswitch.org; Miguel > > Angel Muñoz Gonzalez; Manuel Buil; László Sürü; > > Multanen, Eric W > > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] NSH Option 2 implementation > > > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 07:47:50PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Basically, OVS has implemented tunnels in its own fashion for far longer > > than OpenFlow has had any support for tunnels. OVS might > > eventually support both ways to handle tunnels but for now it makes sense > > to continue implementing them in the OVS style. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
