Ravi,
You and Jesse don't seem to agree about the MPLS implementation but the QinQ
code doesn't seem to be in conflict. Any chance you would consider spitting the
MPLS and QinQ patches and see if you can get the QinQ one through? I am
already using it live and its working great so would love to
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 05:02:22PM -0700, ravi kerur wrote:
> diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c
> index 7b86f80..319033c 100644
> --- a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c
> +++ b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c
...
> @@ -5125,6 +5132,76 @@ compose_dec_ttl(struct action_xlate_ctx *ctx)
> }
>
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 05:02:22PM -0700, ravi kerur wrote:
> Patch sent last night had missed some fixes in the kernel + whitespace
> errors. Anyways attaching latest patch.
Hi Ravi. I'm playing with your patches and come to some questions.
- More than 1 MPLS labels case
This case seems unfini
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 9:45 PM, ravi kerur wrote:
> > As mentioned earlier, in the best interest of the time(both mine and
> yours)
> > I will have to re-evaluate whether to continue working on both mpls and
> qinq
> > and get back to you. Its
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 9:45 PM, ravi kerur wrote:
> As mentioned earlier, in the best interest of the time(both mine and yours)
> I will have to re-evaluate whether to continue working on both mpls and qinq
> and get back to you. Its just not working out as I have done everything that
> has been a
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:48 AM, ravi kerur wrote:
> > I understand code review is time consuming and please note it's a bit
> time
> > consuming to me as well as I have to retest/rebase everytime and I am not
> > sure whether the amount of tim
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:48 AM, ravi kerur wrote:
> I understand code review is time consuming and please note it's a bit time
> consuming to me as well as I have to retest/rebase everytime and I am not
> sure whether the amount of time I am spending on this is justifiable?
Reviewing this code is
I understand code review is time consuming and please note it's a bit time
consuming to me as well as I have to retest/rebase everytime and I am not
sure whether the amount of time I am spending on this is justifiable?
MPLS actions are implemented as per section 4.8 in OF 1.1 specification,
excerp
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 8:56 AM, ravi kerur wrote:
> Can you take a look at latest diffs I sent out on Tuesday? It has
> simplified ttl handling for both userspace and kernel datapath. Most
> of the logic is in ofproto-dpif.c and datapath just updates ttl in the
> packet for respective headers. Th
Can you take a look at latest diffs I sent out on Tuesday? It has
simplified ttl handling for both userspace and kernel datapath. Most
of the logic is in ofproto-dpif.c and datapath just updates ttl in the
packet for respective headers. This is the minimal operation any
datapath will do irrespectiv
Ben and I talked a little about the best way to move forward with
this. At this point, none of the possible implementations for
handling TTL are particularly appealing. Recirculation in the kernel
is likely the right solution for at least some of the problems but it
would likely be complicated an
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:08 AM, ravi kerur wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 5:29 PM, ravi kerur wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:22 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
On Jun 14, 2012, at 10:13 PM, ravi kerur wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 1
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 5:29 PM, ravi kerur wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:22 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
>>> On Jun 14, 2012, at 10:13 PM, ravi kerur wrote:
>>>
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 5:29 PM, ravi kerur wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:22 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 2012, at 10:13 PM, ravi kerur wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:24 PM, ravi kerur wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:22 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2012, at 10:13 PM, ravi kerur wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:24 PM, ravi kerur wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2
On Jun 14, 2012, at 10:13 PM, ravi kerur wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:24 PM, ravi kerur wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Jesse Gross wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:51 AM, ravi kerur wrote:
> There are additiona
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 2:42 PM, ravi kerur wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Jesse Gross wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 09:55:36PM +0900, Jesse Gross wrote:
> If we go
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:24 PM, ravi kerur wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Jesse Gross wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:51 AM, ravi kerur wrote:
Ok got it. At least I am sensing that OVS will/should be optimized for
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 2:42 PM, ravi kerur wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 09:55:36PM +0900, Jesse Gross wrote:
If we go with what you have now, I'm fairly confident that we will
>
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 2:09 PM, ravi kerur wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:24 PM, ravi kerur wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Jesse Gross wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:51 AM, ravi kerur wrote:
There are additional things that needs to be addressed as well
1.
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:29 PM, ravi kerur wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
I spent a fair amount of time thinking about this today and concluded th
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:24 PM, ravi kerur wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:51 AM, ravi kerur wrote:
>>> Ok got it. At least I am sensing that OVS will/should be optimized for
>>> both core and edge cases. I have taken care of comments fr
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 09:55:36PM +0900, Jesse Gross wrote:
>>> If we go with what you have now, I'm fairly confident that we will
>>> regret it in the future. The kernel code used to mor
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:24 PM, ravi kerur wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:51 AM, ravi kerur wrote:
>>> Ok got it. At least I am sensing that OVS will/should be optimized for
>>> both core and edge cases. I have taken care of comments fr
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
>>> I spent a fair amount of time thinking about this today and concluded that
>>> neither option is very attractive as is.
>>>
>>>
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:51 AM, ravi kerur wrote:
>> Ok got it. At least I am sensing that OVS will/should be optimized for
>> both core and edge cases. I have taken care of comments from Pravin
>> and I think we are waiting for Ben's input o
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 09:55:36PM +0900, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> If we go with what you have now, I'm fairly confident that we will
>> regret it in the future. The kernel code used to more directly
>> implement various features and prior to ups
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> I spent a fair amount of time thinking about this today and concluded that
>> neither option is very attractive as is.
>>
>> If we go with what you have now, I'm fairly confident that w
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:51 AM, ravi kerur wrote:
> Ok got it. At least I am sensing that OVS will/should be optimized for
> both core and edge cases. I have taken care of comments from Pravin
> and I think we are waiting for Ben's input on ttl handling?
It's not a question of optimization. If
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 09:55:36PM +0900, Jesse Gross wrote:
> If we go with what you have now, I'm fairly confident that we will
> regret it in the future. The kernel code used to more directly
> implement various features and prior to upstreaming we broke many
> of them down. I'm happy with
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2012, at 12:12 PM, ravi kerur wrote:
>
>> Thanks Pravin for the review comments. Inline
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
>>> Hi Ravi,
>>>
>>> I see following issues with datapath mpls support:
>>>
>>> Ac
Ok got it. At least I am sensing that OVS will/should be optimized for
both core and edge cases. I have taken care of comments from Pravin
and I think we are waiting for Ben's input on ttl handling?
There are additional things that needs to be addressed as well
1. offload code review, it's curren
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:32 AM, ravi kerur wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:04 AM, ravi kerur wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
On Jun 13, 2012, at 12:12 PM, ravi kerur wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 201
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:04 AM, ravi kerur wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
>>> On Jun 13, 2012, at 12:12 PM, ravi kerur wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
> TTL actions:
>>>
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:04 AM, ravi kerur wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> On Jun 13, 2012, at 12:12 PM, ravi kerur wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
TTL actions:
As Jesse has mentioned before there could be one Set acti
Inline
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2012, at 12:12 PM, ravi kerur wrote:
>
>> Thanks Pravin for the review comments. Inline
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
>>> Hi Ravi,
>>>
>>> I see following issues with datapath mpls support:
>
On Jun 13, 2012, at 12:12 PM, ravi kerur wrote:
> Thanks Pravin for the review comments. Inline
>
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
>> Hi Ravi,
>>
>> I see following issues with datapath mpls support:
>>
>> Actions:
>> I do not see skb->csum updated when mpls action is
Thanks Pravin for the review comments. Inline
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Pravin Shelar wrote:
> Hi Ravi,
>
> I see following issues with datapath mpls support:
>
> Actions:
> I do not see skb->csum updated when mpls action is performed on packet.
csum calculation is usually done in the k
Hi Ravi,
I see following issues with datapath mpls support:
Actions:
I do not see skb->csum updated when mpls action is performed on packet.
Push / Set_lse action:
You can compute mpls_lse value flow setup time in userspace. That will
save time in every packet switching plus it simplifies code.
kernel code
is not reviewed yet.
Thanks,
Ravi
-Original Message-
From: Luiz Ozaki [mailto:luiz.oz...@locaweb.com.br]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:28 PM
To: Kerur, Ravi
Cc: b...@nicira.com; dev@openvswitch.org
Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] MPLS and VLAN QinQ patch
On 5/24/12 1:40 PM
On 5/24/12 1:40 PM, ravi.ke...@telekom.com wrote:
Thanks Luiz, Please update on your test results.
I'm trying to compile it on the XenServer DDK release 6.0.2-53456p
(xenenterprise) and I'm getting a compilation error:
http://pastebin.com/0XhaAyB6
/* Handle VLAN-QinQ/MPLS, VLAN/MPLS e
-Original Message-
From: Ben Pfaff [mailto:b...@nicira.com]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 9:32 AM
To: Kerur, Ravi
Cc: dev@openvswitch.org
Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] MPLS and VLAN QinQ patch
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 01:24:00AM +0200, ravi.ke...@telekom.com wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 01:24:00AM +0200, ravi.ke...@telekom.com wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:58:53PM +0200, ravi.ke...@telekom.com wrote:
> > Ben Pfaff writes:
> > > get_l3_ttl_and_tos()
> > >
> > >
> > > Why does get_l3_ttl_and_tos() consider an unknown IP version as
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 06:27:11PM +0200, ravi.ke...@telekom.com wrote:
> Sorry for the confusion, I was not questioning your comments they
> are valid and I have addressed them. While making changes it
> occurred to me how invalid_ttl is handled in the controller, will it
> suffer from similar ttl
? Since OVS can rate-limit
and invalid_ttl for ip doesn't rate-limit, will leave the code for mpls as it
is.
-Original Message-
From: Ben Pfaff [mailto:b...@nicira.com]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 9:14 AM
To: Kerur, Ravi
Cc: dev@openvswitch.org
Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] MPLS and VLAN QinQ
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 05:49:30PM +0200, ravi.ke...@telekom.com wrote:
> I would like to revisit this topic...
>
> > ofproto-dpif.c
> > --
> >
> > I think that say, two, dec_mpls_ttl actions in a single flow,
> > starting from a TTL of, say, 2, will fail to detect reaching TTL
> > 0.
I would like to revisit this topic...
ofproto-dpif.c
--
I think that say, two, dec_mpls_ttl actions in a single flow, starting from a
TTL of, say, 2, will fail to detect reaching TTL 0. Also, the existing
implementation of dec ttl for IP stop translating actions after reaching TTL
switch.org [mailto:dev-boun...@openvswitch.org] On
Behalf Of Ben Pfaff
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 4:02 PM
To: Kerur, Ravi
Cc: dev@openvswitch.org
Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] MPLS and VLAN QinQ patch
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:58:53PM +0200, ravi.ke...@telekom.com wrote:
> Ben Pfaff writes:
> >
Thanks Ben for your thorough review. Comments inline
-Original Message-
From: dev-boun...@openvswitch.org [mailto:dev-boun...@openvswitch.org] On
Behalf Of Ben Pfaff
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 4:02 PM
To: Kerur, Ravi
Cc: dev@openvswitch.org
Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] MPLS and VLAN QinQ
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:58:53PM +0200, ravi.ke...@telekom.com wrote:
> Ben Pfaff writes:
> > get_l3_ttl_and_tos()
> >
> >
> > Why does get_l3_ttl_and_tos() consider an unknown IP version as
> > success, with a default? This seems odd.
>
> To handle non-IP traffic i.e push
Replies Inline
-Original Message-
From: Ben Pfaff [mailto:b...@nicira.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 1:45 PM
To: Kerur, Ravi
Cc: dev@openvswitch.org
Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] MPLS and VLAN QinQ patch
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 07:36:32PM +0200, ravi.ke...@telekom.com wrote:
> Attac
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 07:36:32PM +0200, ravi.ke...@telekom.com wrote:
> Attached MPLS and VLAN QinQ patch after rebasing to following commit
>
> commit 046f1f89e6d7716581de207dd0c54421926bc25b
> Author: Ethan Jackson mailto:et...@nicira.com>>
> Date: Mon May 21 13:20:18 2012 -0700
>
> Patch(s
s-dev] MPLS and VLAN QinQ patch
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 07:25:52PM +0200, ravi.ke...@telekom.com wrote:
> > As for the TTL, I don't think that any OpenFlow version allows for
> > matching on an IP TTL, so there is no support-by-analogy for
> > matching on the MPLS TTL. Is the
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 07:25:52PM +0200, ravi.ke...@telekom.com wrote:
> > As for the TTL, I don't think that any OpenFlow version allows for
> > matching on an IP TTL, so there is no support-by-analogy for
> > matching on the MPLS TTL. Is there another reason to support
> > matching on the MPLS
Inline
-Original Message-
From: Ben Pfaff [mailto:b...@nicira.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 10:06 AM
To: Kerur, Ravi
Cc: dev@openvswitch.org
Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] MPLS and VLAN QinQ patch
I've fixed your quoting.
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 06:38:58PM +0200, ravi.ke...@teleko
I've fixed your quoting.
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 06:38:58PM +0200, ravi.ke...@telekom.com
wrote:
> Ben Pfaff writes:
> > OF1.3 adds the ability to match on the MPLS "BOS" bit. Should we add that
> > here too?
>
> My plan was to first get to 1.1 and later on to 1.2/1.3. I
> think it is good to ha
Thanks Luiz, Please update on your test results.
Thanks,
Ravi
-Original Message-
From: Luiz Ozaki [mailto:luiz.oz...@locaweb.com.br]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 2:38 PM
To: Kerur, Ravi
Cc: b...@nicira.com; dev@openvswitch.org
Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] MPLS and VLAN QinQ patch
On 5/22/12
Please see inline . I have removed the ones which I fixed it. Some
questions/clarifications inline.
-Original Message-
From: Ben Pfaff [mailto:b...@nicira.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 11:10 AM
To: Kerur, Ravi
Cc: dev@openvswitch.org
Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] MPLS and VLAN QinQ patch
On 5/22/12 3:12 PM, ravi.ke...@telekom.com wrote:
Thanks Ben. I have addressed all your previous comments with one exception of
adding ofpbuf_* common function. I haven't worked on the patch since mid April,
will work on it after I receive additional comments on the latest patch.
Please note t
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 07:36:32PM +0200, ravi.ke...@telekom.com wrote:
> Attached MPLS and VLAN QinQ patch after rebasing to following commit
>
> commit 046f1f89e6d7716581de207dd0c54421926bc25b
> Author: Ethan Jackson mailto:et...@nicira.com>>
> Date: Mon May 21 13:20:18 2012 -0700
Here's some
ok quite right.
>
> Thanks,
> Ravi
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Pfaff [mailto:b...@nicira.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 10:49 AM
> To: Kerur, Ravi
> Cc: dev@openvswitch.org
> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] MPLS and VLAN QinQ patch
>
> On Tue, May 22
anks,
Ravi
-Original Message-
From: Ben Pfaff [mailto:b...@nicira.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 10:49 AM
To: Kerur, Ravi
Cc: dev@openvswitch.org
Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] MPLS and VLAN QinQ patch
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 07:36:32PM +0200, ravi.ke...@telekom.com wrote:
> Attached MPLS and VLAN Qin
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 07:36:32PM +0200, ravi.ke...@telekom.com wrote:
> Attached MPLS and VLAN QinQ patch after rebasing to following commit
>
> commit 046f1f89e6d7716581de207dd0c54421926bc25b
> Author: Ethan Jackson mailto:et...@nicira.com>>
> Date: Mon May 21 13:20:18 2012 -0700
>
> Patch(s
63 matches
Mail list logo
