On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Madhu Challa <cha...@noironetworks.com> wrote: > Jesse, > > Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Madhu Challa <cha...@noironetworks.com> >> wrote: >> > Thanks Ben. I will debug and get back to you. I will check with Jesse in >> > the >> > upcoming ovs conference if he has other thoughts on implementing this. >> >> I haven't had too much time to make progress on this so I don't have >> much in the way of additional thoughts at this point. The main one is >> that my goal is to not implement support for specific TLVs in OVS but >> to expose the full flexibility outwards so that anyone can introduce >> new metadata without having to modify OVS (the only possible exception >> being things that have to happen autonomously or on a per-packet basis >> in OVS). > > > I was thinking along same lines. I was planning on having a new > MFF_TUN_METADATA that is basically parsed as a raw OXM of length between 4 > and 128 bytes. The match logic would parse multiple of these OXMs from a > FlowMod. > > From the struct match perspective we need to extend struct flow_tnl to carry > this metadata. This is the difficult part because struct flow is already 200 > bytes and the sparse representation only allows an addition of 52 bytes. I > feel we could instead have a reference to tnl metadata from flow_tnl. I have > not scoped out all the changes to do this, however if you have any thoughts > or an alternative that would be great.
I agree that we will need to extend some infrastructure here. I haven't thought too much about this yet. >> >> One issue that comes up when doing this is that the TLVs in both >> Geneve and OXM are exactly the same size so mapping them directly >> would consume the entire OXM space just for Geneve. There was a >> suggestion to use experimenter OXMs since they are larger but I >> haven't had a chance to look into this yet. > > > Yep I am using experimenter OXMs. I'm curious how you ended up laying this out. The OpenFlow spec says that the extra space should be used as an vendor ID in the form of an OUI. How did you reconcile this? _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
