On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 05:36:50PM -0700, Justin Pettit wrote:
>
> > On Apr 28, 2015, at 5:21 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 03:53:03PM -0400, Russell Bryant wrote:
> >>
> >> The code here looks correct and I also tested it. I was just wondering
> >> if you could comment on the choice of a 16 bit integer here instead of a
> >> UUID. My guess is that it has to do with where this ID will be used in
> >> a tunnel protocol, but it might be nice to capture that somewhere.
> >
> > Thanks for the question, I used it to improve the documentation to:
> >
> > <column name="tunnel_key">
> > A number that represents the logical port in the IDs carried within
>
> "IDs" sounds a bit strange to me. What about "metadata"? Unfortunately,
> there's no consistent way to refer to those bits, so my suggestion may not be
> an improvement.
>
> > tunnel protocol packets. (This avoids wasting space for a whole UUID
> > in
> > tunneled packets. It allows OVN to support encapsulations that cannot
> > fit an entire UUID in their tunnel keys.)
>
> I think the second sentence in the parenthetical section would be clearer if
> it started with "Also".
OK, how about this:
A number that represents the logical port in the key (e.g. VXLAN VNI or
STT key) field carried within tunnel protocol packets. (This avoids
wasting space for a whole UUID in tunneled packets. It also allows OVN
to support encapsulations that cannot fit an entire UUID in their
tunnel keys.)
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
