From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 net-next 4/7] openvswitch: add layer 3 flow/port support Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 17:16:13 +0900 Message-ID: <20160520081611.GB17561@vergenet.net> References: <1462347393-22354-1-git-send-email-simon.horman@netronome.com> <1462347393-22354-5-git-send-email-simon.horman@netronome.com> <20160517163250.7ead555e@griffin> <20160520052858.GA15505@vergenet.net> <20160520100028.0065a2ef@griffin> <20160520081120.GA17561@vergenet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, dev@openvswitch.org, Lorand Jakab , Thomas Morin To: Jiri Benc Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com ([209.85.220.44]:35782 "EHLO mail-pa0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932239AbcETIQX (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 May 2016 04:16:23 -0400 Received: by mail-pa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id tb2so20373387pac.2 for ; Fri, 20 May 2016 01:16:23 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160520081120.GA17561@vergenet.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 05:11:23PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 10:00:28AM +0200, Jiri Benc wrote: > > On Fri, 20 May 2016 14:29:01 +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > > > The second option does seem rather tempting although I'm not sure > > > that it actually plays out in the access-port scenario at this time. > > > > We support gre ports to be access ports currently. With conversion to > > ipgre, this needs to continue working. It's no problem for frames with > > the Ethernet header but now we have a situation where a port is tagged, > > thus the user expects that packets received on that port will behave > > accordingly. I don't think we can make some packets honor this and some > > ignore this; and we can't disallow gre to be an access port. > > > > How do you plan to solve this? By user space always pushing an ethernet > > header before push_vlan? > > Yes. That is my understanding of how OvS currently handles access ports but > I have a feeling that either I am mistaken or that you are referring to a > slightly different scenario. Hi again. I apologise for having sent my previous email a little too quickly. My understanding is that currently OvS handles access ports using a push_vlan action. And that this patch set in conjunction with its user-space counterpart should ensure that a push_eth action occurs first. This is the context of my remarks above.