On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Lori Jakab <loja...@cisco.com> wrote: > On 6/27/14, 4:25 PM, Lori Jakab wrote: >> >> On 6/25/14, 6:58 PM, Lori Jakab wrote: >>> >>> On 6/25/14, 5:19 AM, Jesse Gross wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Lori Jakab <loja...@cisco.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Jesse, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 5/23/14, 2:07 AM, Jesse Gross wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Lori Jakab <loja...@cisco.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/21/14, 4:10 AM, Jesse Gross wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 7:02 AM, Lorand Jakab <loja...@cisco.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Implementation of the pop_eth and push_eth actions in the kernel, >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> layer 3 flow support. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Lorand Jakab <loja...@cisco.com> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Lori, can you take a look at the thread with Thomas Morin and see >>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>> the outcome is reasonable to you? It seems like we've reached a >>>>>>>>> conclusion at this point. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have been following that thread, and I only submitted version 3 of >>>>>>>> my >>>>>>>> patches since you suggested at some point to include the Ethertype >>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>> absolutely necessary. Based on our previous discussion, it wasn't >>>>>>>> absolutely necessary for LISP. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> By outcome, I assume you mean this message: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2014-May/040291.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In that case, please confirm my interpretation of "unconditionally >>>>>>>> include >>>>>>>> it when it is part of the protocol" for LISP encapsulated packets: >>>>>>>> since >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> LISP encapsulation header doesn't contain the Ethertype of the >>>>>>>> packet >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> follows and it can be inferred from the first attribute in the >>>>>>>> packet >>>>>>>> (which >>>>>>>> can only be either IPv4 or IPv6), the Ethertype should not be >>>>>>>> included. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, what you have looks conceptually right. I've been waiting until >>>>>>> the other thread concludes to look at the patch in more detail. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Now that I think we can consider the other thread concluded, can you >>>>>> please >>>>>> take a look at the patch? In my understanding, the conclusion was >>>>>> that LISP >>>>>> as-is should not send Ethertype information over Netlink, not even in >>>>>> the >>>>>> tunnel metadata, since the protocol itself doesn't send it on the >>>>>> wire. >>>>>> Once we implement GPE (see below), we can change that for GPE-enabled >>>>>> LISP >>>>>> tunnels. >>>>> >>>>> Yeah, it seems like the we're all set on this issue. I'll take a look >>>>> at the patch tomorrow. >>>> >>>> Hi Lori, >>>> >>>> Would you mind sending out a rebased version of this series? >>> >>> >>> I rebased it, but due to recent changes on master the patches don't work >>> anymore :( I've been hunting the cause today to no avail. I'll send a new >>> version as soon as I sort it out. >> >> >> Please find the rebased version here: >> >> http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2014-June/042223.html > > > With recent changes, rebasing of v4 against master doesn't work without > conflict resolution. I maintain a current version on Github, which I rebase > and test daily, if you want to apply my work cleanly to your tree for > testing: > > https://github.com/ljakab/openvswitch.git l3_v5
Thanks - I have the patch applied to master from the time that you sent it out that I'm using for review but this is helpful as well. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
