On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 04:41:05PM +0200, Eelco Chaudron wrote: > On 13/04/18 20:02, Ben Pfaff wrote: > >On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 03:42:56PM +0100, Eelco Chaudron wrote: > >>This patch will make sure VXLAN tunnels with and without the group > >>based policy (GBP) option enabled can not coexist on the same > >>destination UDP port. > >> > >>In theory, VXLAN tunnel with and without GBP enables can be > >>multiplexed on the same UDP port as long as different VNI's are > >>used. However currently OVS does not support this, hence this patch to > >>check for this condition. > >> > >>v1->v2 > >> Updated commit message as its now clear that the OVS implementation > >> does not support VNI multiplexing on the same UDP port. > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Eelco Chaudron <echau...@redhat.com> > >Thanks for the update. > > > >Doesn't this make tunnel configuration O(n**2) in the number of tunnels? > >It looks like every tunnel checks at configuration time whether there is > >another tunnel of the same kind. I know of some configurations with > >hundreds (thousands?) of tunnels. Is there a way to make it cheaper? > > > > Thanks for the reply, and sorry for the late response, as this was on my low > priority stack... > > I looked at it again and you are right this is an expensive operation with a > lot of tunnels, especially with the smap creation. > > It looks like Cascardo's original patch with a simap per port might be less > expensive. However, he forgot the cleanup and with his approach, we need to > walk all tunnels to make sure this is the last tunnel and we can remove the > simap entry. I could do a shash and keep a tunnel count to avoid the cleanup > walk. Or maybe some other way to quickly find the vport with a hmap... > > I'll investigate the options a bit more and come with a v3.
Thanks for taking a look. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
