Add support for layer 3 GRE vports (non-tap aka non-VTEP).
This makes use of a separate vport type for GRE, rather than a new mode for
the existing (tap/VTEP) GRE vports as this fits more naturally with the
kernel where implementation of GRE and thus implementation of this feature
there.
In order
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:15 PM, Simon Horman
wrote:
> Add support for layer 3 GRE vports (non-tap aka non-VTEP).
>
> This makes use of a separate vport type for GRE, rather than a new mode for
> the existing (tap/VTEP) GRE vports as this fits more naturally with the
> kernel where implementation
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:09:28PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:15 PM, Simon Horman
> wrote:
> > Add support for layer 3 GRE vports (non-tap aka non-VTEP).
> >
> > This makes use of a separate vport type for GRE, rather than a new mode for
> > the existing (tap/VTEP) GRE
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:09:28PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:15 PM, Simon Horman
>> wrote:
>> > Add support for layer 3 GRE vports (non-tap aka non-VTEP).
>> >
>> > This makes use of a separate vport type for GRE,
Hi Jesse, Simon,
It is great to see this work moving forward !
There is one cosmetic thing that we may want to address, which is how to
name these ports.
- I believe that it is better to avoid the l3 port naming, since they
will apply to all protocols that can be designated with an ethertype,
Sorry for the late answer, was busy with a conference and internal
meetings in the past two weeks.
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 17:15:15 -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
> I think this sounds like a good idea if we can find a way to do it
> cleanly. From OVS's perspective, the main thing that we need is a way
> to
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:15:20PM +0100, Jiri Benc wrote:
> Sorry for the late answer, was busy with a conference and internal
> meetings in the past two weeks.
>
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 17:15:15 -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
> > I think this sounds like a good idea if we can find a way to do it
> > cle
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Jiri Benc wrote:
> Sorry for the late answer, was busy with a conference and internal
> meetings in the past two weeks.
>
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 17:15:15 -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> I think this sounds like a good idea if we can find a way to do it
>> cleanly. From
On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 17:32:28 -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
> The thing that bothers me about this is that it's not really a binary
> split between Ethernet and IP. L2 "obviously" means Ethernet (although
> theoretically there could be other things), but L3 means IPv4, IPv6,
> MPLS, NSH, etc.? That is w
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Jiri Benc wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 17:32:28 -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> The thing that bothers me about this is that it's not really a binary
>> split between Ethernet and IP. L2 "obviously" means Ethernet (although
>> theoretically there could be other thing
10 matches
Mail list logo
