On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Elzur, Uri <uri.el...@intel.com> wrote: > Jesse > > So maybe it is just me, but I really don't get the similarity w IPv4 options. > Both Geneve and NSH have TLV options. I have not seen a definition of the > Geneve TLV format either (pls excuse me if I have missed it, and pls point me > in the right direction).
Support for Geneve TLVs is currently available in the most recent released version of OVS. (It's also being used by OVN.) What I'm looking for with NSH is a similar level of support, so I believe this position is consistent. In fact, since there is already support for some form of TLVs in OVS, there is a significant amount of code that should be able to be reused. > Anyhow, I wonder how we move forward, we have multiple folks suggesting we > can implement MD Type 1 first and see no bearing for OvS if we add MD TYPE 2 > later. So is it a rough consensus? Multiple committers opine on this? I'm not sure I understand your position. There is no question of design or whether this should be implemented one way or a different way. It's simply a matter of when to implement MD type 2. So unless you feel that MD type 2 should never be implemented, by far the fastest and easiest way to move forward is simply to complete the implementation rather than continuing to discuss when we should implement it. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
