On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Han Zhou <zhou...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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?
I think doing this will result in a VXLAN implementation that is complicated and difficult to maintain. You'll need to maintain this as an out of tree patch unless you can show a larger degree of support. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
