On 11/18/13 9:19 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:46:26AM +0200, Lori Jakab wrote:
Thanks for the review, Ben.
On 11/16/13 12:36 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 04:36:23PM +0200, Lorand Jakab wrote:
Add member is_layer3 to struct ofport_dpif to mark layer 3 ports. Set
it to "true" for the only layer 3 port we support for now: lisp.
Additionally, prevent flooding to layer 3 ports. A later patch will
also prevent MAC learning.
This patch is useful and could be applied even without the rest of the
layer 3 patches, since flooding packets to lisp ports shouldn't happen
anyway.
Signed-off-by: Lorand Jakab <loja...@cisco.com>
This seems reasonable. Can you document the behavior somewhere?
Maybe in vswitch.xml wherever it describes LISP ports.
How about something like this:
--- a/vswitchd/vswitch.xml
+++ b/vswitchd/vswitch.xml
@@ -1387,8 +1387,17 @@
<dt><code>lisp</code></dt>
<dd>
- A layer 3 tunnel over the experimental, UDP-based Locator/ID
- Separation Protocol (RFC 6830).
+ <p>
+ A layer 3 tunnel over the experimental, UDP-based Locator/ID
+ Separation Protocol (RFC 6830).
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ Only IPv4 and IPv6 packets are supported by the protocol, and
+ they are sent and received without an Ethernet
header. Traffic
+ to/from LISP ports is expected to be configured
explicitly, and
+ the ports are not intended to participate in learning based
+ switching. As such, they are always excluded from packet
+ flooding.
</dd>
<dt><code>patch</code></dt>
Since the behavior of LISP ports improves with this patch, should I
resend it with the above changes separately, while I address the
comments on the 3rd one?
Yes, that sounds good.
OK, I just sent out a new patch with the above folded in.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
