On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Kyle Mestery (kmestery) <kmest...@cisco.com> wrote: > On Jan 29, 2013, at 9:13 PM, Kyle Mestery (kmestery) <kmest...@cisco.com> > wrote: >> On Jan 29, 2013, at 6:47 PM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Kyle Mestery (kmestery) >>> <kmest...@cisco.com> wrote: >>>> On Jan 29, 2013, at 5:19 PM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote: >>>>> The other area that I'm somewhat concerned about is with upstreaming. >>>>> Once we get OVS for GRE and VXLAN upstream (which Pravin is working on >>>>> now), the delta between the out of tree module and in tree module will >>>>> be very small. I'd like to keep on decreasing the differences but we >>>>> may want to wait a little while for LISP until we get down further >>>>> down your plan. >>>> >>>> Is the goal to eventually not require the out of tree module? If that's the >>>> case, then perhaps we need to look at adding LISP support upstream into >>>> Linux in parallel to the plan above. >>> >>> Yes, I'd like to get to the point where the out of tree module is >>> basically just a backported version of the upstream module and new >>> things go into both roughly simultaneously. With the exception of >>> tunneling related things, this should already be true. >>> >> Awesome, this is a very good goal to have. >> >>> It would be great if you guys can think start thinking about the best >>> way to integrate LISP with upstream since it is a little different >>> from the other tunnel types. However, I don't want to predicate LISP >>> in OVS on being upstream since the tunnel infrastructure needs to be >>> upstreamed first. Once that happens it should be easier to add >>> additional protocols. >> >> Yes, we'll start thinking about this as well. But in the meantime, we'll keep >> addressing comments you have on the existing patch, and work to integrate >> LISP in OVS per the plan we sent out. > > Jesse: > > I just wanted some clarification here. Do you plan to still review the LISP > changes > as is with the static MAC as we have it? I wanted to clarify we think the > changes > around OVS and ethernet are not required for the existing LISP patch to go > upstream > into OVS. We think they can be done in parallel with the other work, but > should > not limit the current, working LISP tunnel code from going upstream. > > What do you think?
Yes, I'm planning on looking at the patch that you posted. I've been trying to hunt down some bugs, which is why I haven't looked at it yet, but I should get to it soon. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
