Jesse, Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Madhu Challa <cha...@noironetworks.com> > wrote: > > Thanks Ben. I will debug and get back to you. I will check with Jesse in > the > > upcoming ovs conference if he has other thoughts on implementing this. > > I haven't had too much time to make progress on this so I don't have > much in the way of additional thoughts at this point. The main one is > that my goal is to not implement support for specific TLVs in OVS but > to expose the full flexibility outwards so that anyone can introduce > new metadata without having to modify OVS (the only possible exception > being things that have to happen autonomously or on a per-packet basis > in OVS). > I was thinking along same lines. I was planning on having a new MFF_TUN_METADATA that is basically parsed as a raw OXM of length between 4 and 128 bytes. The match logic would parse multiple of these OXMs from a FlowMod. >From the struct match perspective we need to extend struct flow_tnl to carry this metadata. This is the difficult part because struct flow is already 200 bytes and the sparse representation only allows an addition of 52 bytes. I feel we could instead have a reference to tnl metadata from flow_tnl. I have not scoped out all the changes to do this, however if you have any thoughts or an alternative that would be great. > One issue that comes up when doing this is that the TLVs in both > Geneve and OXM are exactly the same size so mapping them directly > would consume the entire OXM space just for Geneve. There was a > suggestion to use experimenter OXMs since they are larger but I > haven't had a chance to look into this yet. > Yep I am using experimenter OXMs. Thanks.
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
