On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 06:40:51PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: >> > Jesse and I spent some time pondering this face-to-face, so there's a >> > bunch of discussion that hasn't shown up on the mailing list. >> > >> > My understanding of what we concluded is: >> > >> > ?? ?? ?? ??- We will add a new "encap" flow key attribute that contains >> > ?? ?? ?? ?? ??nested attributes. ??An "encap" is used whenever layering is >> > ?? ?? ?? ?? ??duplicated or jumps down (e.g. when a L2, L3, or L4 header >> > ?? ?? ?? ?? ??is followed by an L2 header). >> > >> > ?? ?? ?? ??- The "set" action is explicitly defined to act on the >> > ?? ?? ?? ?? ??outermost instance of a header. >> > >> > ?? ?? ?? ??- We will abandon the pretense that "push" and "pop" can be >> > ?? ?? ?? ?? ??generic and introduce explicit "push_vlan" and "pop_vlan" >> > ?? ?? ?? ?? ??actions. >> >> I agree that this is what we concluded. I had one additional thought >> though: In general, this format is now ordering independent but the >> encap attribute is linked to the encapsulating tag but is separate. I >> think this is not actually ambiguous because there can only be one >> level of encapsulation at a given nesting level and it is always >> essentially at the end. It's a little strange though. > > There are other alternatives that are odd in other ways. Instead of > vlan(vid,pcp),encap(...), we could use vlan(vid,pcp),vlan_encap(...), > that is, make the encap attribute specific to what's causing the > encapsulation, or we could use vlan_encap(vlan(vid,pcp),...).
Another thing that I thought of was: vlan(encap_attrs(vid,pcp),...) i.e. have a generic encapsulation attributes type with contents that depends on the outer tag. Like you said though, they're all weird in some way. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
