On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:26 AM, Simon Horman <ho...@verge.net.au> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:00:54AM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: >> 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. > > Although it seems like an invasive change I can see how it may be possible > for ovs-vwitchd to clone the packet and emit multiple execute operations, one > per output port. > > However, I'm not sure I see how an appropriate put operation can be emitted > to the datapath using this scheme as, recirculation aside, there can only > be one facet per match. > > I'm also a little dubious about the complexity of this change vs the > objective of not adding an element to the skb callback.
No, I don't think that we should add a clone action. I think the overriding principle should be that any actions after an MPLS header has been pushed should be the same as if a packet came in with an MPLS header directly. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
