On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 06:05:06PM +0100, Thomas Morin wrote: > Hi Ben, > > 2016-02-25, Ben Pfaff: > >On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:26:28AM +0100, thomas.mo...@orange.com wrote: > >>Sorry to chime in a bit late, but this recirculation performance penalty for > >>the basic/key use-case where OVS receives an IP-in-MPLS frame and forwards > >>it to the destination (e.g. a local VM), does not look appealing at all. > >> > >>To allow having the best of both worlds (avoid perf penalty in all cases, > >>but avoid complex code to automatically determine whether recirculation is > >>needed or not), would it be possible to specify in a flow, after an mpls > >>match, whether or not recirculation is wanted ? > > > >No. That would be a layering violation. > > I don't get what kind of layering violation you see. > Can you explain?
Whoever specifies the actions shouldn't have to know OVS implementation details. Having to know whether recirculation is necessary means that the user must know all about the implementation. Also, the "pop MPLS" action is specified by OpenFlow and doesn't include this information. > >If you can find a better way to do it, that is maintainable, we'd be > >open to that. > > What about: > - adding a parameter to the pop_action (recirculate after pop, or don't > recirculate after pop) The "pop MPLS" action is specified by OpenFlow and doesn't include this information. > - or keep the current pop, and add a pop_and_do_not_recirculate Possibly, if you can specify pop_and_do_not_recirculate in a way that refers only to stuff that makes sense at the OpenFlow level, so it makes sense without having to refer to OVS implementation details. It's not a perfect solution, but it might be acceptable if nothing better can be found. > - or add an explicit recirculate action, and by default do not recirculate Layering violation. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
