On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Kyle Mestery (kmestery) <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2012, at 1:27 PM, Jesse Gross <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Kyle, > > > > Things are continuing to move along and I think that most of the major > infrastructure pieces are either complete or coming along nicely. One area > that might make sense for you to work on is the VXLAN dataplane support. I > know that you've been maintaining Ben's patch out of tree so hopefully > there isn't too much that needs to be done. In the past I was reluctant to > apply it on it's own but I think now that everything else is coming > together it makes sense. > > > > A couple things that come to mind that you might want to look into: > > * Any updates to apply against master (it's looks pretty current but > I'm guessing that the recent header caching changes will require some > updates). > > * I think we probably want to make the destination port configurable as > part of the port properties from the database. Fixing it in the kernel > seems a little restrictive. > > Hi Jesse: > > I spoke with our IETF folks, and they said that all shipping VXLAN > implementations are using the OTV port (8472) as the destination port for > VXLAN. Given this, do we still want to make this configurable? Please see > section 3.1 of the L2 LISP draft here: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-smith-lisp-layer2-01 I think we should use the OTV port by default but still make it configurable (which I know at least some other implementations enable as well). The situation seems fairly analogous to other upper layer protocols like HTTP where there is a well defined port number but people still like to change it.
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
