Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 07:54:15PM CET, [email protected] wrote: >From: Tom Herbert <[email protected]> >Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 10:33:46 -0800 > >> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Simon Horman <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> I think the above paragraph gets back to Tom's original question regarding >>> making things more complex just for OvS (use-cases). Possibly ND is an edge >>> case even for OvS and on reflection my timing for posting it seems to have >>> been less than ideal. >> >> If it wasn't ND it would be something else... with all the activity >> happening in networking features and HW this is a timely discussion. >> Flow dissector presents a good example of a function that might become >> a dumping ground for an endless stream of features if we don't figure >> out how exercise some restraint. > >I agree on most points. > >But, I would say that in this specific case, since we have ARP support in >there already it behooves us to support the ipv6 side in the form of ND >too. > >Then we can put a line in the sand and say that future feature additions >in this area require serious discussion.
Yeah, well, and if there is a functinality that is unacceptable for any reason to put into flow_dissector, we have to do a flow_dissector2? Note that I originally had separate dissection in cls_flower, you suggested to use the existing flow_dissector. And I still believe it was the right way to do it. I think that better is to make existing flow dissector more modular. I'll look into this.
