On 01/12/15 at 01:54pm, Jesse Gross wrote: > On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Thomas Graf <tg...@suug.ch> wrote: > > + if (tb[OVS_VXLAN_EXT_MAX]) > > + opts.gbp = nla_get_u32(tb[OVS_VXLAN_EXT_MAX]); > > Shouldn't this be OVS_VXLAN_EXT_GBP instead of OVS_VXLAN_EXT_MAX? > (They have the same value.)
Good catch, thanks! > > + if (!is_mask) > > + SW_FLOW_KEY_PUT(match, tun_opts_len, sizeof(opts), false); > > + else > > + SW_FLOW_KEY_PUT(match, tun_opts_len, 0xff, true); > > Have you thought carefully about how the masking model work as other > extensions are potentially added? This was a little tricky with Geneve > because I wanted to be able to match on both "no options present" as > well as wildcard all options. The other interesting thing is how you > serialize them back correctly to userspace, which was the genesis of > the TUNNEL_OPTIONS_PRESENT flag. > > My guess is that this may basically work fine now that there is only > one extension present but it is important to think about how it might > work with multiple independent extensions in the future. (I haven't > thought about it, I'm just asking.) I currently don't see a reason why adding another extension would be a problem. It should work like Geneve options except that the order of the options in the flow is given (struct vxlan_opts). Matching on "no options present" is supported in the datapath by via the TUNNEL_VXLAN_OPT flag although there is no way in user space to express this intent yet. I haven't come across a need to support it yet. Since the Netlink API is decoupled from the datapath flow representation, all of this can be changed if needed without breaking the Netlink ABI. > If you set Geneve options and output to a VXLAN port (or vice versa), > you will get garbage, right? Is there any way that we can sanity check > that? What about if we only apply tun_info->options on Geneve if TUNNEL_GENEVE_OPT is set and vice versa? _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev