Ravi, You and Jesse don't seem to agree about the MPLS implementation but the QinQ code doesn't seem to be in conflict. Any chance you would consider spitting the MPLS and QinQ patches and see if you can get the QinQ one through? I am already using it live and its working great so would love to see it in the get through into the upstream to guarantee its maintained into the future.
Cheers, Chris On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 16:50:32 ravi kerur wrote: On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote: On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 9:45 PM, ravi kerur <rke...@gmail.com> wrote: > As mentioned earlier, in the best interest of the time(both mine and yours) > I will have to re-evaluate whether to continue working on both mpls and qinq > and get back to you. Its just not working out as I have done everything that > has been asked and what doesn't make technical sense to me I have always > resorted to discussion and giving the reasons why it is implemented that > way. I agree that this is not working. At this point, I think this thread is probably the longest that we've ever had on the mailing list and I don't really see that we're making progress towards me being able to apply it. <rk> This thread will go on forever because what you are proposing is not making any sense to me and what I have implemented does not make sense to you. Furthermore, I cannot force you to take this patch and similarly you cannot force me to implement something which I think is wrong as both short term and long term solution. So I agree as well its best to stop here. I hope that somebody will be able to pick up the patch in the future and use it as a starting point. <rk> I will probably give the patch if someone requests to work on it.
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
