+1 on starting w MD Type = 1 Not sure I understand the concern expressed with " implementations that don't implement TLVs will become deployed and then when there is a use for them it's no longer possible." - why will it not be possible to add MD Type=2 later?
Thx Uri (“Oo-Ree”) C: 949-378-7568 -----Original Message----- From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@openvswitch.org] On Behalf Of Thomas F Herbert Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 8:03 AM To: Jiri Benc <jb...@redhat.com>; Jesse Gross <je...@kernel.org> Cc: dev@openvswitch.org; Manuel Buil <manuel.b...@ericsson.com>; su....@huawei.com; László Sürü <laszlo.s...@ericsson.com>; Paul Quinn (paulq) <pa...@cisco.com>; nick.tausanovi...@netronome.com Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add Network Service Header Support On 7/13/16 10:55 AM, Jiri Benc wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:35:59 -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: >> I think history tells us how this will end - similar to IPv4 options, >> implementations that don't implement TLVs will become deployed and >> then when there is a use for them it's no longer possible. Since I >> don't want OVS to have a half implementation or contribute to this >> issue, I'd like to see the whole protocol implemented before I apply >> anything. > I see a big difference between this and IPv4. While in IPv4, the > options are extension to existing headers, here we're talking about a > completely different payload. It's more comparable to http vs. ftp (of > course, it's a poor comparison, but I hope it illustrates at least a > bit what I mean). > > If NSH takes off (and it's a big "if" in my opinion), it's also well > possible we'll see more metadata types. The spec is pretty much open > to this. Obviously, the authors are aware of that and type 2 is optional. > As I guess will be type 3 and type 4 and whatever. > > It's pretty much inevitable that applications and deployments built > around MD type 1 won't support MD type 2. And vice versa. This is > regardless whether ovs supports MD type 2 or not. They're just a > different protocol. > > In my opinion, starting with MD type 1 is a good way to reduce the > initial scope. I see no problem with adding MD type 2 later. +1 > > Jiri -- *Thomas F Herbert* SDN Group Office of Technology *Red Hat* _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
