On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 03:30:05PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 03:20:52PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: > > It's possible to imagine that a switch might want to report additional > > capabilities related to Geneve beyond just the number of options and > > how much space they can consume. Some examples include additional > > restrictions on parsing (if this command is used for non-OVS implementations > > or OVS changes how it works) and per-packet actions that can't be done > > generically (such as checksums or encryption). It's not yet clear if > > these will be necessary or if OpenFlow is the right place to expose > > them. However, it's easy to do now and there is very little cost so > > it seems like a good idea to leave some additional reserved space. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> > > I'd consider s/pad/zero/ to make it easier for receivers to be sure > (later) that they're interpreting non-garbage.
Oh, but it's fine either way: Acked-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
