>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ilya Maximets <i.maxim...@ovn.org>
>Sent: Thursday, 20 March 2025 14:59
>To: Roi Dayan <r...@nvidia.com>; d...@openvswitch.org
>Cc: Maor Dickman <ma...@nvidia.com>; Eli Britstein <el...@nvidia.com>;
>i.maxim...@ovn.org
>Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH 0/3] Support tunnel-void action
>
>External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
>On 3/20/25 10:26, Roi Dayan via dev wrote:
>> Upon tunnel output failure, due to routing failure for example, add a
>> tunnel-void action. This action does not do anything, but it appears
>> in the dp-flows for better visibility for that case.
>
>Hi, Eli.  Thanks for the set!
>
>I see the issue and agree that we should have better visibility for it, but we
>shouldn't add new actions.  We have an explicit drop action exactly for cases
>like this.  So, instead of a new action, we need to add a new xlate_error type
>and generate an explicit drop action (if supported by the datapath) with this
>error as a drop reason.  And we already have counting of such drops with
>coverage counters in the userspace datapath, we'll just need to add a new
>one for a new drop reason.  See dp_update_drop_action_counter() function.
>
>Note: new xlate errors should be added to the end of the enum.

Hi Ilya,

The "tnl-void" is not a "drop", but a "no-op" action. Only if there are no 
other actions, it is translated to drop.
In other cases, it is not.
For example, consider a flow that follows this openflow (that fails routing):
In_port=<P1>,actions=<vxlan0>,<P2>

With the absence of "tnl-void", the datapath flow is simply 
in_port=<P1>,actions=<P2>
I omit the other default matches, just to explain.

With those patches, the datapath flow will be in_port=<P1>,actions=tnl_void,<P2>

Thanks,
Eli

>
>Best regards, Ilya Maximets.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev

Reply via email to