On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:30:26AM -0700, Joe Stringer wrote: > You're quite right. I think for OF1.2, this is similar to existing > behaviour, but for OF1.3 it's just incorrect. There is an additional issue > with the LOAD action. > > OF1.2: > "push_vlan(A),push_mpls,push_vlan(B)" > In OF1.2, this has the same result as:- > "push_mpls,push_vlan(A),push_vlan(B)" > > When translated, this boils down to "(pop_vlan,)push_mpls,push_vlan(B)". > Correct me if I am wrong, but I think this is similar to the existing > behaviour, as we currently only support one layer of VLAN. It doesn't > matter if A == B. > > OF1.3: > "mod_vlan_vid:A,push_mpls:0x8847,mod_vlan_vid:A" should work, but the > second mod_vlan is being dropped as it has the same VID as the first. This > is incorrect, as you point out. > > LOAD: > "load:A->OXM_OF_VLAN_VID,push_mpls:0x8847,load:A->OXM_OF_VLAN_VID" doesn't > result in the correct vlan_vid from the first load action. I'm not sure > that vlan_tci_restore() is clear or correct---I believe its original > purpose was to properly handle the case where MPLS changes are made from > REG_LOAD and friends, in the way that the PUSH_MPLS case works. Instead, it > is handling all cases where MPLS actions have been applied in the past, > whether the current action modifies MPLS or not. > > It's probably also worthwhile to make use of the ovs-ofctl monitor "-m" > option in the tests to actually verify these, rather than the current tests > where we just check the size of the resulting packet.
Thanks for the careful analysis. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
