On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 05:22:47PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote: > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Simon Horman <ho...@verge.net.au> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 10:09:30AM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 10:09:55PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > >> > as far as I can tell no one is actively working on the following item in > >> > OPENFLOW-1.1+. So I have made a start it. > >> > > >> > * The new in_phy_port field in OFPT_PACKET_IN needs some kind of > >> > implementation. It has a sensible interpretation for tunnels > >> > but in general the physical port is not in the datapath for OVS > >> > so the value is not necessarily meaningful. We might have to > >> > just fix it as the same as in_port. > >> > [required for OF1.1; optional for OF1.2+] > >> > >> Sounds good! I hope you're planning to do something simple. > > > > My main plan is to allow communication of the in_phy_port field > > between ovs-vswtichd and the datapath by adding a new netlink key. > > Then to expose that in packet_in messages. I also have it in mind > > to allow matching on the in_phy_port, but probably later. > > > > As for determining the in_phy_port. My plan is to determine the vport that > > tunneled packets arrive on in their encapsulated form and use that as the > > in_phy_port. I plan to not set the in_phy_port for non-tunnelled packets; > > to set it to the same as in_port for non-tunnelled; or some combination of > > the two depending on how the code pans out. > > How do you plan on getting the physical vport? It seems a little > challenging because the port might not be attached to OVS at all or at > the very least it is likely not attached to the same bridge.
That's one main reason I haven't bothered with this: it seems unlikely to be useful. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
