On Feb 1, 2013, at 12:03 PM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote: > 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.
Great, thanks! _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
