On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 01:10:09AM +0000, Lilijun (Jerry, Cloud Networking) wrote: > Thanks for your reply. > > In my use case, it's OVS userspace datapath with dpdk. > > My detail case was a bit complicated as follows: > 1. Start the OVS userspace datapath with dpdk in my host server. > 2. A VM was running and the VNIC's vhostuser port on the userspace datapath > is configured as QinQ mode, qinq-ethtype 802.1q. > 3. Another kernel OVS is running in that VM to switch packets of some > containers. Then the container's VNIC port on the kernel datapath is also > configured as QinQ Mode, qinq-ethtype=802.1q . > 4. So when the container sends a packet with VLAN tag, the OVS running in > the host will receive a packet with 2 VLANS from the VM. > 5. Here the QinQ is not worked when we need 3 VLANs. > > Yes, VXLAN or PBB can work but we need change our basic network topology and > push/pop for every packets. That maybe the last choice if QinQ can't support > triple VLAN.
There is still a push/pop for the third VLAN tag. I'm not sure it makes sense to support the extra VLANs in upstream OVS. This is non-standard and there are alternatives such as VXLAN. If it wasn't splitting the MPLS labels across cache lines then it would be a harmless change. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Pfaff [mailto:b...@ovn.org] > Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 3:33 AM > To: Eric Garver <e...@garver.life>; Lilijun (Jerry, Cloud Networking) > <jerry.lili...@huawei.com>; d...@openvswitch.org; ovs-discuss@openvswitch.org > Subject: Re: [ovs-discuss] [PATCH v2] [ovs-dev] [PATCH] QinQ: support more > vlan headers. > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 03:15:21PM -0400, Eric Garver wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 03:03:19AM +0000, Lilijun (Jerry, Cloud Networking) > > wrote: > > > Hi Eric, > > > > > > Yes, I agree with that effect. > > > But how about this issue of QinQ that we can only support at most 2 VLANs > > > ? Do you have any ideas? > > > > I was not NACKing the idea. Just wanted everyone to understand the > > implications of increasing the VLAN field size. > > > > I tried playing with the fields, but didn't come with a reasonable way > > to rearrange them to make room for the extra VLANs. > > > > I'm curious what you're use case is for triple VLAN. I wonder if VXLAN > > or PBB (802.1ah) is a better solution. > > I'd also like to know what datapath we're talking about. The Linux kernel > datapath only supports 2 VLANs in any case. > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > d...@openvswitch.org > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list disc...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss