On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:46:26AM +0200, Lori Jakab wrote: > Thanks for the review, Ben. > > On 11/16/13 12:36 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote: > >On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 04:36:23PM +0200, Lorand Jakab wrote: > >>Add member is_layer3 to struct ofport_dpif to mark layer 3 ports. Set > >>it to "true" for the only layer 3 port we support for now: lisp. > >> > >>Additionally, prevent flooding to layer 3 ports. A later patch will > >>also prevent MAC learning. > >> > >>This patch is useful and could be applied even without the rest of the > >>layer 3 patches, since flooding packets to lisp ports shouldn't happen > >>anyway. > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Lorand Jakab <loja...@cisco.com> > >This seems reasonable. Can you document the behavior somewhere? > >Maybe in vswitch.xml wherever it describes LISP ports. > > How about something like this: > > --- a/vswitchd/vswitch.xml > +++ b/vswitchd/vswitch.xml > @@ -1387,8 +1387,17 @@ > > <dt><code>lisp</code></dt> > <dd> > - A layer 3 tunnel over the experimental, UDP-based Locator/ID > - Separation Protocol (RFC 6830). > + <p> > + A layer 3 tunnel over the experimental, UDP-based Locator/ID > + Separation Protocol (RFC 6830). > + </p> > + <p> > + Only IPv4 and IPv6 packets are supported by the protocol, and > + they are sent and received without an Ethernet > header. Traffic > + to/from LISP ports is expected to be configured > explicitly, and > + the ports are not intended to participate in learning based > + switching. As such, they are always excluded from packet > + flooding. > </dd> > > <dt><code>patch</code></dt> > > Since the behavior of LISP ports improves with this patch, should I > resend it with the above changes separately, while I address the > comments on the 3rd one?
Yes, that sounds good. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
