On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Chris Luke <chr...@flirble.org> wrote: > Jesse Gross wrote (on Fri 03 Jan, 2014 at 00:27 GMT): > >> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Chris Luke <chr...@flirble.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Jan 2, 2014, at 16:51, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:46 PM, Chris Luke <chr...@flirble.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> Jesse Gross wrote (on Tue 24 Dec, 2013 at 03:05 GMT): >>>>>> >>>>>> * This type of concept has come up before and its usually in the >>>>>> context of allowing an existing daemon like lldpad to be run on an OVS >>>>>> port. At a minimum, we would need to make sure that whatever we do >>>>>> here is compatible with that and ideally we would be able to >>>>>> essentially solve both problems at the same time. If you are planning >>>>>> on running routing protocol daemons then maybe it is already pretty >>>>>> similar. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Exactly. I have lldpd running on my test setup and it appears to work >>>>> fine, but I'll dig into it to be sure. >>>> >>>> >>>> Do the packets sent from the daemon go through OVS? It doesn't seem >>>> like they would and while this would likely work in many cases, it is >>>> odd. >>> >>> >>> No, from the daemon they go directly out the port. The case that needs >>> OVS involvement is incoming packets. >> >> >> I believe that it works correctly in most cases but it seems somewhat >> weird and asymmetric. Is there anything that we can do about it? > > > I think it's just the nature of it - the datapath only hooks into the > receive path of ports. If you wanted DP involvement in the other direction > we'd need some hook into host-originated traffic. That would certainly > make it feel more symmetric from a user perspective. I can take that on if > it's interesting for OVS.
I think it's worth looking into at least. It seems like it's probably nicer to the user and it might even just fit in logically with whatever other changes we need to have a nice hook. >>> If you feel the switch mode idea is a non-starter then I'll abandon it. >> >> >> Yeah, I'm pretty strongly opposed to hanging more things onto the >> normal action. In OVS there's a history of breaking things out of >> normal because they tend to not interact very well with the OpenFlow >> pipeline so I'm not eager to mix more things in. > > > Done. That code had ugly stuff in it anyway. But it was a good learning > exercise to get to know the code base. > > As for potential upstream kernel stuff, really what we want is to > be able to resume the chain of network "stuff" from the point after > our module. It has been a very long time since i submitted anything > to the Linux kernel - like, since before it had SMP support. :) I think we just need to figure out what the right way to handle this is and then we can deal with the mechanics of submission later. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
