[adding Justin and ovs-dev]
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 08:58:54PM +0200, ravi.ke...@telekom.com wrote: > Can you let me know some details on your non-IP testing? To mitigate your > concern, the only non-IP I have tested is ARP traffic. Though it is unusual > for ARP traffic to carry MPLS labels, this test-case does work fine. It will > be good if you can respond to queries rather than me poking around and trying > to extract the information, it will surely help expedite the process. > > Patches and the email I sent out on Monday are the latest ones and let me > know if you want me to do any additional testing, I will have to get access > to the testbed first. > > You can respond to the original thread if you would like. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kerur, Ravi > Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 9:01 AM > To: 'Jesse Gross' > Cc: b...@nicira.com; dev@openvswitch.org > Subject: RE: [ovs-dev] MPLS important comments (was: Re: Patch for MPLS) > > > Ravi, > > I spent some time to test your most recent version of this patch. > Using the very simple test environment that I described before > consisting of just two machines talking to each other with a single > level of tagging I encountered several issues. These included not > only the hardware offloading issues that I mentioned previously but > also an issue with the bottom of stack bit that prevents non-IP > traffic from passing. Encountering these types of issues with the > first and most basic experiment that I ran gives me significant > concern about the level of testing that this patch has seen. I > understand that you might have expectations about common use cases but > the fact is that Open vSwitch and OpenFlow are designed to encourage > new usage models and so it is important that any code we add is robust > in all situations. Generally, open source projects would not add a > work-in-progress patch and would expect that any patches sent for > review consist of what the author considers a final revision. > Unfortunately, this means without significant improvements we're not > going to able to accept this patch or continue reviewing it (which is > quite time consuming). > > <rk> Could you please elaborate on testing? Assuming IP==IPV4, non-IP could > be IPV6 or any other layer-3. > > For IPV6: There was a brief discussion in the mailing list regarding this > topic. Though I haven't seen any practical usage of IPV6 over MPLS directly, > code takes care of handling IPV6 traffic. > > For any other layer-3: Spec is not clear on how to handle non-IP traffic and > I guess it would be at the discretion of the vendor. Will check what the spec > says on this. Your testing will probably turn out be VPLS? I believe you have > configured flows such that it matches src/dst mac address and actions include > mpls related ones. Some of the mpls actions will not apply for this case, > however, basic push/pop should work. Code is written such that it should be > able to handle this case or easily extensible. I haven't tested this case > because I have focused mainly on IPV4->MPLS and to some extent IPV6->MPLS and > integration with VLAN and VLAN-qinq. > > When you say non-IP, what type of traffic is it and how are you generating > that traffic? Is it possible to get a remote access to you testbed to > understand better? Or if you can give additional information on your testing > it would be helpful and I can fix it. My focus is mainly on IP(4/6) over MPLS > and VLAN integration and that's what I have tested. > > Regarding the patch, I am confused myself which patch has what changes since > I am focusing on mpls/vlan-qinq/automation in parallel and I am frequently > rebasing the code. So it's possible that some of my changes are missing the > transition. Once you provide the details of your testing I will take a look > at it. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
