On 06/10/15 at 01:43pm, Shrijeet Mukherjee wrote: > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:15 AM, Thomas Graf <tg...@suug.ch> wrote: > > Do I understand this correctly that swp* represent veth pairs? > > Why do you have distinct addresses on each peer of the pair? > > Are the addresses in N2 and N3 considered private and NATed? > > > > [...] > > > > > ???These are physical boxes in the picture not veth pairs or NAT's :)???
I see. So if I translate this to a virtual world with veths where the guest facing peer is in its own netns, the host facing veth peer would get attached to a vrf device and we should be good. > ???Are you worried about ip rule scale ? this reduces the scale to number of > L3 domains, which should be not that large. I do think we need to speed up > rule lookup from the linear walk we have right now. I definitely have more L3 domains than what a linear search can handle. > A generic classifier seems like a bigger hammer, but if that is the way to > replace rules it is a worthy concept. > > That said, the patches from Hannes et al, will make it such that the table > lookup maybe from the driver directly and thus will skip past the fib rule > lookup. The approach from Hannes definitely works for the physical world but is undesirable for overlays, logical or encapsulations, where we want to avoid maintaining a net_device for every virtual network. As I said, I think this is something that can be resolved later on with a programmable classifier. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
