On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 7:29 AM Ales Musil <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 4:58 PM Lorenzo Bianconi <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Lorenzo Bianconi (2):
>>   northd: move defrag router pipeline stage forward
>>   northd: add flows to defrag IP traffic
>>
>>  northd/northd.c         |  50 ++--
>>  northd/ovn-northd.8.xml |  60 +++--
>>  tests/ovn-northd.at     | 526 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
>>  tests/ovn.at            |  52 ++--
>>  tests/system-ovn.at     |   8 +-
>>  5 files changed, 360 insertions(+), 336 deletions(-)
>>
>> --
>> 2.39.2
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dev mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
>>
>>
> Hi Lorenzo,
>
> as discussed earlier, adding my opinion on this topic.
> First of all I agree that we need a separate defrag stage, however
> there I see two major drawbacks with your suggestion.
>
> 1) We will send to CT all packets that are fragmented even if they are
> not to be load balanced.
> 2) Fragmented traffic for LBs will go through CT twice (or three times if
> it's a new connection).
>
> I would suggest rearranging it slightly differently.
> To solve both issues from above the defrag stage should apply only for
> packets that are destined to LB VIP e.g.
>
> match=(ip && ip.dst == VIP), action(ct_next;)
>
> And the post-defrag/pre-dnat stage would populate all registers that are
> required
> for the dnat stage itself e.g.
>
> match=(ip && ip.dst == VIP && PROTO && PROTO.dst == VIP_PORT),
> action=(reg00 = VIP, reg9 = PROTO.dst, next;)
>
> One thing that is not completely clear is why there is a ct_dnat; in the
> current defrag stage as
> from my point of view it would be enough to have ct_next. Unless I'm
> missing something
> it should be completely fine to replace it with ct_next as there shouldn't
> be any unDNAT
> happening because this is for original traffic and not reply.
>
> Adding mainters to CC to get more insights especially why there is ct_dnat.
>

Ah scratch that idea, I just completely ignored the fact that the ct_dnat
is there for already established traffic.
However we should still address the first point.


>
> Thanks,
> Ales
>
> --
>
> Ales Musil
>
> Senior Software Engineer - OVN Core
>
> Red Hat EMEA <https://www.redhat.com>
>
> [email protected]    IM: amusil
> <https://red.ht/sig>
>


-- 

Ales Musil

Senior Software Engineer - OVN Core

Red Hat EMEA <https://www.redhat.com>

[email protected]    IM: amusil
<https://red.ht/sig>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev

Reply via email to