Hi Jan, On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:04:22AM +0000, Jan Scheurich wrote: > > > [Jan] Should sending a packet after push_nsh to an output port be > > > allowed in general? For a VXLAN-GPE tunnel port this is OK, but my > > > expectation was that one must explicitly do push_eth (followed by > > > set_field for dl_src and dl_dst) to be able to transmit on a normal > > > Ethernet port. > > > > > Yes, to output to VxLAN-GPE port, we could just use "output:1" as shown in > > The example flow, while adding some additional flow actions > > are required to Output to normal L2 port. We could explicitly add flow > > action "push_eth" or We could use implicit "push_eth" dataplane > > action to add an Ethernet header To the packet before outputting to the > > normal L2 port. > > I believe that using implicit push_eth is not a viable option for sending > to an Ethernet port. The reason is that the resulting MAC header would > have all-zero source and destination MAC addresses and can therefore not > properly be transmitted on Ethernet links (unless the link is a > point-to-point connection and the receiver is configured for promiscuous > mode). > > The implicit push_eth action introduced by Simon in his L3 tunnel port > patch mainly ensures the presence of the 14 byte MAC header on ports > where this is a must for syntactic interpretation of the packet. It did > not worry about if the resulting packet was semantically useful or not.
In the context of my patchset it is possible to set the MAC addresses (to something non-zero) using a set-field (or similar) action. Is that facility of use here? _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
