On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Rajahalme, Jarno (NSN - FI/Espoo) <jarno.rajaha...@nsn.com> wrote: > > On Mar 9, 2013, at 16:54 , ext Simon Horman wrote: > >> It is not obvious to me how the behaviour relating to get_priority() as >> described above can sensibly be reconciled with a desire to preserve the >> order of actions. Or even reconciled with a looser constraint that actions >> that need l3+ data occur before push_mpls actions. > > Maybe do_xlate_actions() should take care of translating the skb_priority to > nw_tos, and make sure that it happens before any L2.5 actions are translated. > This would make any later set actions on skb_priority ineffective, though. > Also, it seems that on the patch port output the nw_tos is not set, so that > might require some further thought. Maybe it is of no functional use for the > network transport, but still the peer might actually depend (via a match) on > the nw_tos being set the same way as any other port might have it?
I agree that simply moving the setting of nw_tos earlier in the process is the best way to handle this. A similar problem occurs if an MPLS (or any other non-IP) packet is received on the wire - changing the priority will have no effect on the marking. Since pushing MPLS labels and setting the priority are both done by the controller, this behavior should at least be fairly transparent and not surprising. As far the as marking when using patch ports, that just seems like a bug to me. Ethan? _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
