On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 6:40 AM, Amine Kherbouche
<amine.kherbou...@6wind.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 11/08/2017 17:14, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:55 AM, David Lamparter <equi...@diac24.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 10:28:37PM +0200, Amine Kherbouche wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This commit introduces the support of VPLS virtual device, that allows
>>>> performing L2VPN multipoint to multipoint communication over MPLS PSN.
>>>>
>>>> VPLS device encap received ethernet frame over mpls packet and send it
>>>> the
>>>> output device, in the other direction, when receiving the right
>>>> configured
>>>> mpls packet, the matched mpls route calls the handler vpls function,
>>>> then pulls out the mpls header and send it back the entry point via
>>>> netif_rx().
>>>>
>>>> Two functions, mpls_entry_encode() and mpls_output_possible() are
>>>> exported from mpls/internal.h to be able to use them inside vpls driver.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Amine Kherbouche <amine.kherbou...@6wind.com>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> +union vpls_nh {
>>>> + struct in6_addr addr6;
>>>> + struct in_addr addr;
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +struct vpls_dst {
>>>> + struct net_device *dev;
>>>> + union vpls_nh addr;
>>>> + u32 label_in, label_out;
>>>> + u32 id;
>>>> + u16 vlan_id;
>>>
>>> I looked at VLAN support and decided against it because the bridge layer
>>> can handle this perfectly fine by using the bridge's vlan support to tag
>>> a port's pvid.
>>
>> yes, agreed. there is no need for vlan here. The bridge can be
>> configured with the required vlan
>> mapping on the vpls port.
>
> what if the output device cannot handle vlan encapsulation? because on my
> example of configuration in the cover letter, I sent the vpls packets over
> a simple physical net device (not a bridge nor a vlan port).
There are already multiple ways vlan encap is added today, eg vlan
device, under a bridge, using tc etc. I don't think every driver
should carry vlan encap info. see vxlan as an example, it does
not....you can use a bridge or tc etc for the vlan to vni map. You
will need a bridge anyways for fwding db, stp etc in such deployments.
We can add vlan in the future if it becomes necessary. I don't see a need today.
