On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:18:02PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote: > > The main part that worries me about moving to a different approach is > the impedance mismatch that occurs from the fact that Open vSwitch is > modeling a switch and tc is not. As Jamal alluded to above, it's > actually the bridge code which is more conceptually similar. In my > experience, combining two disparate models makes things harder over > the long run, not easier. It also tends to show up more in some of > the edges like userspace/kernel compatibility.
>From what I've seen in the kernel part of OVS, the most striking thing is that it has almost nothing to do with a switch/bridge :) In fact, if you got rid of those data path objects, and just did things based off the vports, I reckon it would still work and do pretty much the same thing. For example, if you wanted you could actually use the same mechanism to do routing. However, I don't think we need to distract ourselves by these grand visions right now, as the OVS patch AFAICS is sufficiently self-contained that it does not constrain us from future changes like this. Cheers, -- Email: Herbert Xu <herb...@gondor.apana.org.au> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
