On 08/26/14 at 11:54am, Andy Gospodarek wrote: > It is easy to *say* it could be added later, but connecting to software > forwarding in the kernel outside of OVS (which is important to some) > would take significant effort since this set only connects switch > hardware to OVS.
Can you explain why that effort is more significant if a flow API added first? I'm not saying it is easy to offload the existing forwarding path, otherwise it would have been done already, but I don't understand how the proposal makes this any more difficult. > It may be that all software-based forwarding is done via OVS in the > future, but it feels like we are long way from that future for those > that do not want to use an external controller. Wait... I don't want to use OpenFlow to configure my laptop ;-) We should leave the controller out of this discussion though. A controller is not required to run OVS at all. OpenStack Neutron is a very good example for that. There are even applications which use the OVS kernel datapath but not the OVS user space portion. We have a wide set of APIs serving different purposes and need to account for all of them. I'm as much interested in an offloaded nftables and tc command as you. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
