On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 06:41:14AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > On 16-08-15 06:24 AM, Shmulik Ladkani wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 06:08:10 -0400, j...@mojatatu.com wrote: > > > > Assuming $VXLAN is actually not a linux netdev of type vxlan? > > > then the action does vxlan encap redirect sends it to the $VXLAN > > > dev with encapsulation in place. > > > > I assume Amir refers to vxlan netdev in VXLAN_F_COLLECT_METADATA mode, > > using the tun_info metadata found in skb_metadata_dst. > > The action is supposed to assign the tun metadata. > > > > I see - so you let the vxlan netdev do the encap? > Would it still scale to a _very large_ number of tunnels? > How many netdevs are you going to use? I am assuming you will hit > a nasty lock somewhere(qdisc?) if you use only one. Having a netdev per tunnel is problematic in its memory use [1]. User can take each of the approaches. Can have a shared netdev, but will have some contention on the qdisc lock, or create a vxlan dev per VNI and increase memory use. When offloading will be added, shared netdev will enjoy all worlds - low memory use and no lock contention.
[1] - http://www.netdevconf.org/1.1/proceedings/slides/ahern-aleksandrov-prabhu-scaling-network-cumulus.pdf > > cheers, > jamal
