On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Ryota Ozaki <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 7:55 PM, Mihai Chelaru <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 26/05/15 05:42, Ryota Ozaki wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> The mail subject may recall someone an old thread: >>> https://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-net/2013/02/01/msg003847.html >>> >>> Yes, I'm taking over the task :) >>> >>> >>> http://www.netbsd.org/~ozaki-r/refactor_l2_output.diff >>> >>> The patch is basically the same as dyoung's patch with some >>> tweaks to make it work on -current; it gets rid of route >>> lookups from L2 output routines such as ether_output >>> and puts them between ip_output and L2 output routines. >>> >>> One known issue of the change is that it adds an mbuf flag >>> to tell ether_output that mbuf is to be set MPLS ether >>> type. I don't think it's the best way but I don't have >>> another better approach for now. >>> >>> Any comments or suggestions are welcome. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> ozaki-r >>> >> >> Hi there, >> >> I have some questions/observations: >> >> * This cod is generic enough to be linked apart from ip_output.c Maybe it >> can be reused by other protocols as well ? (hint nd6_output) > > I think so, but not tried yet. I'll try tomorrow.
Hmm, I was wrong. This is not so easy to reuse it for nd6_output. Doing next hop determination in nd6_output is not so bad as compared to doing it in ether_output. So I want to keep as is for now and would revisit if we need. ozaki-r > >> * did this patch passed the current net tests ? > > Yes! > >> >> Now about MPLS: >> >> * I'm kinda reluctant in using flags to describe protocol specifics, maybe >> should use a tag for now instead of flags even if this interface is slower ? > > Sure. So we can postpone to add something. We would have a better solution > then. > >> * I think flagging/tagging should also be used in mpls LSE - probably in >> send_frame. > > I'm not sure. Without flagging/tagging for LSE, all tests of MPLS pass. > >> * and also in ip6 output path. I'll try to find time this week to write some >> tests for ip6/mpls - but you can test using route. >> * mpls/gre needs also to be hacked because it uses the same test (have to >> write a test for mpls+gre, too) > > Such tests are welcome! We need much more tests for networking. > > Thanks, > ozaki-r
