Ok, I will make a new version which have no mirror switch. This may need
some days.
Thanks
Gao Zhenyu <sysugaozhe...@gmail.com>
2017/08/07 22:34
收件人： Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org>,
抄送： wang.qia...@zte.com.cn, ovs dev <d...@openvswitch.org>,
zhou.huij...@zte.com.cn, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo <majop...@redhat.com>,
xurong00037997 <xu.r...@zte.com.cn>
主题： Re: [ovs-dev] 答复: Re: 答复: Re: 答复: Re: [PATCH] ovn:
Support for taas(tap-as-a-service) function
I agree with Ben. I didn't see a strong requirement that we must need to
create a new type of switch for mirroring.
We may introduce more and more features in future, some of them may get
same request(handle packet in a special way) as well. But introduceing a
new type of logcial switch makes the whole logical more complex.
So I prefer to use a bit of reg to mark it and follow same pipline.
Thanks
Zhenyu Gao
2017-08-07 21:41 GMT+08:00 Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org>:
You keep mentioning "a new type of switch". I don't understand this.
Who has proposed adding a new type of switch, and what kind of switch
would this be?
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 01:37:52PM +0800, wang.qia...@zte.com.cn wrote:
> If we do not add a new type of switch, we should write flag to a reg to
> indicate the matched packets which are cloned to monitor.
>
> This reg should add to all the pipeline stages of logical switch(both
> ingress and egress) to distinguish from normal flow. Is this right for
> Russell's point?
>
> If we add a new type of switch, we could define a new pipeline like
bellow
> for the monitor function, this have no influence on normal pipeline.
>
> /* Logical mirror switch ingress stages. */ \
> PIPELINE_STAGE(MSWITCH, IN, MIRROR_IN, 0, "lms_in_port") \
> PIPELINE_STAGE(MSWITCH, IN, FLOW_FILTER, 1, "lms_in_flow_filter")\
> PIPELINE_STAGE(MSWITCH, IN, OUT_LK, 2, "lms_in_out_lk") \
> \
> /* Logical mirror switch egress stages. */ \
> PIPELINE_STAGE(MSWITCH, OUT, FLOW_FILTER, 0, "lms_out_flow_filter")\
> PIPELINE_STAGE(MSWITCH, OUT, DELIVERY, 1, "lms_out_delivery")
>
> I think the new defined switch is easy to understand.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org>
> 2017/08/07 11:03
>
> 收件人： wang.qia...@zte.com.cn,
> 抄送： Russell Bryant <russ...@ovn.org>, ovs dev
> <d...@openvswitch.org>, zhou.huij...@zte.com.cn, xurong00037997
> <xu.r...@zte.com.cn>, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo <majop...@redhat.com>
> 主题： Re: [ovs-dev] 答复: Re: 答复: Re: [PATCH] ovn: Support
> for taas(tap-as-a-service) function
>
>
> I am having a very hard time understanding what you're writing here.
> Russell's point makes sense to me, but I don't understand your response.
> Can you give some examples?
>
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 09:40:06AM +0800, wang.qia...@zte.com.cn wrote:
> > Not add new logical_mirror_switch, just use logical_switch of course
can
>
> > capture the use case. But logical_switch pipeline is complex for flow
> > monitor. Flow monitor should ignore some tables such as port_security,
> lb
> > and so on. And also should consider normal function for normal ports.
I
> > think add a new type of switch and the corresponding pipeline may be
> more
> > clear in logical.
> >
> > Is there some adverse effect to add new type switch?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Russell Bryant <russ...@ovn.org>
> > 2017/08/04 22:06
> >
> > 收件人： wang.qia...@zte.com.cn,
> > 抄送： Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo <majop...@redhat.com>, ovs dev
> > <d...@openvswitch.org>, xurong00037997 <xu.r...@zte.com.cn>,
> > zhou.huij...@zte.com.cn
> > 主题： Re: 答复: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] ovn: Support for
> > taas(tap-as-a-service) function
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 8:52 PM, <wang.qia...@zte.com.cn> wrote:
> > Miguel Ángel and Russell
> >
> > Thanks for your reviews.
> >
> > Current taas function just for port monitor, in this situation, we can
> > simplify the design by just add new port type. But we have the plane
to
> > add flow_classifier to tap_flow to monitor special flows of given
port.
> > The flow_classifier definition may like as follow:
> > 'flow_classifiers': {
> > 'id': {'allow_post': False, 'allow_put': False,
> > 'validate': {'type:uuid': None}, 'is_visible': True,
> > 'primary_key': True},
> > 'tenant_id': {'allow_post': True, 'allow_put': False,
> > 'validate': {'type:string': None},
> > 'required_by_policy': True, 'is_visible': True},
> > 'name': {'allow_post': True, 'allow_put': True,
> > 'validate': {'type:string': None},
> > 'is_visible': True, 'default': ''},
> > 'description': {'allow_post': True, 'allow_put': True,
> > 'validate': {'type:string': None},
> > 'is_visible': True, 'default': ''},
> > 'protocol': {'allow_post': True, 'allow_put': True,
> > 'validate': {'type:string': None},
> > 'is_visible': True, 'default': ''},
> > 'src_port_range_min': {'allow_post': True, 'allow_put': True,
> > 'convert_to': attr.convert_to_int,
> > 'is_visible': True, 'default': 0},
> > 'src_port_range_max': {'allow_post': True, 'allow_put': True,
> > 'convert_to': attr.convert_to_int,
> > 'is_visible': True, 'default': 0},
> > 'dst_port_range_min': {'allow_post': True, 'allow_put': True,
> > 'convert_to': attr.convert_to_int,
> > 'is_visible': True, 'default': 0},
> > 'dst_port_range_max': {'allow_post': True, 'allow_put': True,
> > 'convert_to': attr.convert_to_int,
> > 'is_visible': True, 'default': 0},
> > 'src_ip_prefix': {'allow_post': True, 'allow_put': True,
> > 'validate': {'type:subnet':
> > attr._validate_subnet},
> > 'is_visible': True, 'default': '0.0.0.0/0'},
> > 'dst_ip_prefix': {'allow_post': True, 'allow_put': True,
> > 'validate': {'type:subnet':
> > attr._validate_subnet},
> > 'is_visible': True, 'default': '0.0.0.0/0'}
> > }
> >
> > This may need more complex pipeline. So I think add a new table and
new
> > pipeline may be a easier way.
> >
> > Thanks for sharing the info on future capabilities.
> >
> > We have a very flexible syntax for traffic classification in OVN.
It's
> > the logical flow match syntax (see logical flows in the southbound
> > database). We expose this syntax in the northbound database in the
> > "match" column of the ACL table.
> >
> > This would be another use case where we could use this syntax in the
> > northbound database. Expanding on my preview proposal:
> >
> > - a new port type of 'mirror'
> >
> > - when port type=mirror, an option to identify which port is being
> > mirrored
> >
> > - (the new part) when port type=mirror, an option that may be used to
> > specify traffic classification for the subset of traffic on a port to
> > mirror, in "match" syntax
> >
> > Do you think this captures the use case?
> >
> > --
> > Russell Bryant
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dev mailing list
> > d...@openvswitch.org
> > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
>
>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
