On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 11:31 PM Eli Britstein <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 6/27/2019 1:21 AM, Gregory Rose wrote: > > > > On 6/26/2019 11:59 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 08:22:07AM -0700, William Tu wrote: > >>> The patch adds ip6gretap support. Tunnel type 'ip6gretap' is a layer > >>> 2 GRE > >>> tunnel over IPv6, carrying inner ethernet packets and encap with GRE > >>> header > >>> with outer IPv6 header. Encapsulation of layer 3 packet over IPv6 > >>> GRE, ip6gre, > >>> is not supported yet. I tested it by running: > >>> # make check-kernel TESTSUITEFLAGS='-k ip6gretap' > >>> under kernel 5.2 and for userspace: > >>> # make check TESTSUITEFLAGS='-k ip6gretap' > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: William Tu <[email protected]> > >>> Signed-off-by: Eli Britstein <[email protected]> > >>> Co-authored-by: Eli Britstein <[email protected]> > >>> Tested-by: Greg Rose <[email protected]> > >>> Reviewed-by: Greg Rose <[email protected]> > >> Thanks for working to generalize OVS tunnel support. > >> > >> For IPv4 GRE, we use the "gre" tunnel type and then we use > >> options:packet_type to control whether the tunnel carries L2 or L3 > >> packets. Is there a reason that IPv6 GRE should be different? > > > > Hi Ben, > > > > unfortunately there is a reason that ipv6 gre is different and that is > > because it uses the ARPHRD_IP6GRE HW type. That > > is not currently supported by openvswitch so the best we can do for > > ipv6 gre is support the L2 tap driver which uses > > the ARPHRD_ETHER type. > > > > Thanks, > > > > - Greg > > > >> That is, > >> why not just have an "ip6gre" type and then use options:packet_type to > >> control what packets flow through it? > >> > >> (Actually, is there a reason why we should have a separate ip6gre at > >> all? That is, why not just use "gre" and then control whether the outer > >> protocol is IPv4 or IPv6 based on whether the local and remote IPs are > >> IPv4 or IPv6?) > > Hi Ben, > > I had a similar comment in > https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2019-June/359940.html > > The pro points are clear. The cons are that there are already > "ip6erspan" separately from "erspan" (unless we do the same work to > unite them too). Regarding "ip6gre" vs "ip6gretap", I thought it might > be confusing as the type of the netdev is "ip6gretap" (for L2) and there > is "ip6gre" type for L3. In IPv4 case, it is like this too > ("gre"/"gretap", but there is support for both, so "gre" is more user > friendly). In IPv6 case, as William and Greg commented, L3 over IPv6 GRE > is not supported (at least yet). >
Or do we want to add support for ip6gre (L3)? So we can use "ip6gre" and packet_type option to select L2 or L3. --William _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
