On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Jesse Gross <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 1:21 AM, Pravin B Shelar <[email protected]> wrote: >> Keep devices in UP state in stt-list. So that devices in UP state >> would be searched on a packet receive in STT. This way devices in >> DOWN state would not accept any packets. >> >> Signed-off-by: Pravin B Shelar <[email protected]> > > I think this works but it seems like it deviates from the other tunnel > types more than is desirable. The difference between those and STT is > that STT does not have a hash table used to look up devices in the > non-OVS case. However, it might be good to keep STT as close to > upstream best practices as possible even if it isn't immediately > necessary. >
fair enough, I will send out a patch to make it more in sync with other tunnel type. > One other thing that I noticed is that the STT fragment hash table > commingles fragments that were addressed to different destination > ports. This is unlikely to matter with the current implementation but > I'm not sure that it is right. STT fragment hash table has ack_seq which should be unique across different stt-dst-ports. So I am not sure if we need to check dst_port in the fragment lookup. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
