On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Kyle Mestery (kmestery) <kmest...@cisco.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Kyle Mestery <kmest...@cisco.com> wrote: >>> In tnl_set_config(), when determining if a tunnel port >>> already exists, make sure to also check the destination port. For VXLAN, >>> this >>> can be different and allows multiple VXLAN ports in the datapath to be >>> created. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Kyle Mestery <kmest...@cisco.com> >> >> This seems problematic to me because when we lookup the appropriate >> port on receive, we'll basically get a random one and not necessarily >> the one associated with the UDP port that the packet arrived on. This >> should get much easier once we simplify the kernel tunnel code because >> in the normal case each protocol will only have a single port >> associated with it and can just return that directly without doing a >> lookup. I know that Pravin was doing some work to remove the old >> code. Pravin, do you have anything you are ready to send out? > > Thanks Jesse. I think this explains some of the issues I'm seeing now. I > am keenly interested in Pravin's patches here. :)
I will send that patch today. Thanks, Pravin. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
