On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 2:46 AM, Jiri Benc <jb...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:24:53 +0200, Thomas Graf wrote: >> On 10/08/15 at 03:40pm, Jesse Gross wrote: >> > I have similar concerns as were expressed in the other thread. The >> > features listed here aren't OVS components and I don't think that it >> > makes sense for OVS to try to cover everything that is related - the >> > goal that we've been working towards is to have OVS be less monolithic >> > and more integrated. So to the extent that it is necessary to have >> > capabilities be exposed (and I would like to avoid this where >> > possible), it should be in the individual component, not in OVS. > > Fair enough. Note that the IPv6 flag really belongs to ovs, though - > it's about the existence of OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_IPV6_SRC and > OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_IPV6_DST netlink attributes. For the lwtunnel flag > (which is just another way to tell whether vxlan/geneve/etc. has > COLLECT_METADATA support) I can agree that it does not belong to ovs.
We actually already have a mechanism for handling compatibility as new keys are added without requiring capabilities bits - see Documentation/networking/openvswitch.txt. We've used this quite a few times, including the addition of baseline tunnel capabilities. That doesn't really cover IPv6 capability for individual tunneling protocols though (which could vary on a per-protocol basis). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
