On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 01:27:58PM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 01:28:18PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 06:40:51PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 01:28:18PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 06:40:51PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> >> > Jesse and I spent some time pondering this face-to-face, so
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 06:40:51PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> > Jesse and I spent some time pondering this face-to-face, so there's a
>> > bunch of discussion that hasn't shown up on the maili
On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 06:40:51PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > Jesse and I spent some time pondering this face-to-face, so there's a
> > bunch of discussion that hasn't shown up on the mailing list.
> >
> > My understanding of what we concluded
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 06:40:51PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>>> > Jesse and I spent some time pondering this face-to-face, so there's a
>
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 06:40:51PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> > Jesse and I spent some time pondering this face-to-face, so there's a
>> > bunch of discussion that hasn't shown up on the maili
On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 06:40:51PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > Jesse and I spent some time pondering this face-to-face, so there's a
> > bunch of discussion that hasn't shown up on the mailing list.
> >
> > My understanding of what we concluded
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Jesse and I spent some time pondering this face-to-face, so there's a
> bunch of discussion that hasn't shown up on the mailing list.
>
> My understanding of what we concluded is:
>
> - We will add a new "encap" flow key attribute that cont
Jesse and I spent some time pondering this face-to-face, so there's a
bunch of discussion that hasn't shown up on the mailing list.
My understanding of what we concluded is:
- We will add a new "encap" flow key attribute that contains
nested attributes. An "encap" is used whene
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> I'm also thinking about changing the flow key format by dropping the
> ordering restrictions. There's no real benefit to them unless
> anything is actually sensitive to ordering (e.g. we allow duplicate
> attributes, which my proposal below woul
I'm working on a file that would go in Documentation/networking in the
kernel tree and probably in datapath/README in the OVS tree. It
describes OVS in general just a little but it's mostly about flow key
compatibility rules. It actually proposes a change to how we do VLANs
in flow keys (which I
11 matches
Mail list logo
