Hi Jesse, On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 5:05 AM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Zhou, Han <hzh...@ebay.com> wrote: >> In fact, MTU specified by VM doesn't make any sense in a virtualized >> environment. Maybe you can try this patch if you are interested: >> >> http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2014-May/040027.html > > This message seems to be have been taken by my spam filter, so I don't > have the original copy. However, while it is good to prototype > implementations in OVS, I don't think that it is really feasible to > include these types of changes to the OVS VXLAN implementation at this > time. The protocol isn't designed to be independently extensible so > usage of reserve bits needs to be done by the authors rather than in > an ad hoc manner.
Thanks for your comments. I agree that it is kind of ad-hoc, and that's why I posted the patch as RFC to collect comments first. But considering the dramatic performance gains, I think it should be valuable for the community. Would it be helpful if we implement it with a configurable parameter and make it disabled by default? I think many people will benefit from this. What's your suggestion? Best regards, Han _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
