No problem. Thanks for considering the alternative approach! On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 9:12 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, I will make a new version which have no mirror switch. This may need > some days. > > Thanks > > > > > > Gao Zhenyu <[email protected]> > 2017/08/07 22:34 > > 收件人： Ben Pfaff <[email protected]>, > 抄送： [email protected], ovs dev <[email protected]>, > [email protected], Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo <[email protected]>, > xurong00037997 <[email protected]> > 主题： Re: [ovs-dev] 答复: Re: 答复: Re: 答复: Re: [PATCH] ovn: > Support for taas(tap-as-a-service) function > > > I agree with Ben. I didn't see a strong requirement that we must need to > create a new type of switch for mirroring. > > We may introduce more and more features in future, some of them may get > same request(handle packet in a special way) as well. But introduceing a > new type of logcial switch makes the whole logical more complex. > So I prefer to use a bit of reg to mark it and follow same pipline. > > Thanks > Zhenyu Gao > > 2017-08-07 21:41 GMT+08:00 Ben Pfaff <[email protected]>: > You keep mentioning "a new type of switch". I don't understand this. > Who has proposed adding a new type of switch, and what kind of switch > would this be? > > On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 01:37:52PM +0800, [email protected] wrote: >> If we do not add a new type of switch, we should write flag to a reg to >> indicate the matched packets which are cloned to monitor. >> >> This reg should add to all the pipeline stages of logical switch(both >> ingress and egress) to distinguish from normal flow. Is this right for >> Russell's point? >> >> If we add a new type of switch, we could define a new pipeline like > bellow >> for the monitor function, this have no influence on normal pipeline. >> >> /* Logical mirror switch ingress stages. */ \ >> PIPELINE_STAGE(MSWITCH, IN, MIRROR_IN, 0, "lms_in_port") \ >> PIPELINE_STAGE(MSWITCH, IN, FLOW_FILTER, 1, "lms_in_flow_filter")\ >> PIPELINE_STAGE(MSWITCH, IN, OUT_LK, 2, "lms_in_out_lk") \ >> \ >> /* Logical mirror switch egress stages. */ \ >> PIPELINE_STAGE(MSWITCH, OUT, FLOW_FILTER, 0, "lms_out_flow_filter")\ >> PIPELINE_STAGE(MSWITCH, OUT, DELIVERY, 1, "lms_out_delivery") >> >> I think the new defined switch is easy to understand. >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> >> 2017/08/07 11:03 >> >> 收件人： [email protected], >> 抄送： Russell Bryant <[email protected]>, ovs dev >> <[email protected]>, [email protected], xurong00037997 >> <[email protected]>, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo <[email protected]> >> 主题： Re: [ovs-dev] 答复: Re: 答复: Re: [PATCH] ovn: Support >> for taas(tap-as-a-service) function >> >> >> I am having a very hard time understanding what you're writing here. >> Russell's point makes sense to me, but I don't understand your response. >> Can you give some examples? >> >> On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 09:40:06AM +0800, [email protected] wrote: >> > Not add new logical_mirror_switch, just use logical_switch of course > can >> >> > capture the use case. But logical_switch pipeline is complex for flow >> > monitor. Flow monitor should ignore some tables such as port_security, >> lb >> > and so on. And also should consider normal function for normal ports. > I >> > think add a new type of switch and the corresponding pipeline may be >> more >> > clear in logical. >> > >> > Is there some adverse effect to add new type switch? >> > >> > Thanks. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Russell Bryant <[email protected]> >> > 2017/08/04 22:06 >> > >> > 收件人： [email protected], >> > 抄送： Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo <[email protected]>, ovs dev >> > <[email protected]>, xurong00037997 <[email protected]>, >> > [email protected] >> > 主题： Re: 答复: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] ovn: Support for >> > taas(tap-as-a-service) function >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 8:52 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Miguel Ángel and Russell >> > >> > Thanks for your reviews. >> > >> > Current taas function just for port monitor, in this situation, we can >> > simplify the design by just add new port type. But we have the plane > to >> > add flow_classifier to tap_flow to monitor special flows of given > port. >> > The flow_classifier definition may like as follow: >> > 'flow_classifiers': { >> > 'id': {'allow_post': False, 'allow_put': False, >> > 'validate': {'type:uuid': None}, 'is_visible': True, >> > 'primary_key': True}, >> > 'tenant_id': {'allow_post': True, 'allow_put': False, >> > 'validate': {'type:string': None}, >> > 'required_by_policy': True, 'is_visible': True}, >> > 'name': {'allow_post': True, 'allow_put': True, >> > 'validate': {'type:string': None}, >> > 'is_visible': True, 'default': ''}, >> > 'description': {'allow_post': True, 'allow_put': True, >> > 'validate': {'type:string': None}, >> > 'is_visible': True, 'default': ''}, >> > 'protocol': {'allow_post': True, 'allow_put': True, >> > 'validate': {'type:string': None}, >> > 'is_visible': True, 'default': ''}, >> > 'src_port_range_min': {'allow_post': True, 'allow_put': True, >> > 'convert_to': attr.convert_to_int, >> > 'is_visible': True, 'default': 0}, >> > 'src_port_range_max': {'allow_post': True, 'allow_put': True, >> > 'convert_to': attr.convert_to_int, >> > 'is_visible': True, 'default': 0}, >> > 'dst_port_range_min': {'allow_post': True, 'allow_put': True, >> > 'convert_to': attr.convert_to_int, >> > 'is_visible': True, 'default': 0}, >> > 'dst_port_range_max': {'allow_post': True, 'allow_put': True, >> > 'convert_to': attr.convert_to_int, >> > 'is_visible': True, 'default': 0}, >> > 'src_ip_prefix': {'allow_post': True, 'allow_put': True, >> > 'validate': {'type:subnet': >> > attr._validate_subnet}, >> > 'is_visible': True, 'default': '0.0.0.0/0'}, >> > 'dst_ip_prefix': {'allow_post': True, 'allow_put': True, >> > 'validate': {'type:subnet': >> > attr._validate_subnet}, >> > 'is_visible': True, 'default': '0.0.0.0/0'} >> > } >> > >> > This may need more complex pipeline. So I think add a new table and > new >> > pipeline may be a easier way. >> > >> > Thanks for sharing the info on future capabilities. >> > >> > We have a very flexible syntax for traffic classification in OVN. > It's >> > the logical flow match syntax (see logical flows in the southbound >> > database). We expose this syntax in the northbound database in the >> > "match" column of the ACL table. >> > >> > This would be another use case where we could use this syntax in the >> > northbound database. Expanding on my preview proposal: >> > >> > - a new port type of 'mirror' >> > >> > - when port type=mirror, an option to identify which port is being >> > mirrored >> > >> > - (the new part) when port type=mirror, an option that may be used to >> > specify traffic classification for the subset of traffic on a port to >> > mirror, in "match" syntax >> > >> > Do you think this captures the use case? >> > >> > -- >> > Russell Bryant >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > dev mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev >> >> > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
-- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
