From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 1/7] vxlan: Add vxlan_handler. Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:52:20 -0700 Message-ID: <20130726165220.1106ac41@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> References: <1374880488-2884-1-git-send-email-pshelar@nicira.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Pravin B Shelar Return-path: Received: from mail-pd0-f169.google.com ([209.85.192.169]:58331 "EHLO mail-pd0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756881Ab3GZXwX (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jul 2013 19:52:23 -0400 Received: by mail-pd0-f169.google.com with SMTP id y10so3448207pdj.0 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:52:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1374880488-2884-1-git-send-email-pshelar@nicira.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:14:48 -0700 Pravin B Shelar wrote: > vxlan and openvswitch modules needs to share port. Following > patch breaks down vxlan per port abstraction in two component. > So now vxlan_sock is broken into struct vxlan_sock handles socket > and vxlan_handler which handler for user of vxlan protocol. > > Next commit will extend vxlan_handler for openvswitch. > > Signed-off-by: Pravin B Shelar Not sure why the added complexity here is needed. Since the are separate services, why not run them on separate UDP ports. Otherwise unless the kernel and the Openvswitch controller share state (which would be really hard given that OVS controller is in user space), the chance of overlapping configuration seems like a trap. There is already a lot of layering in VXLAN between the device, forwarding table, VNI, and multiple UDP sockets. Doing this needs more thought or persuasive use cases.