Thanks to kefren@ we have more MPLS tests. I confirmed my patch passes the tests.
Thanks, ozaki-r On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Ryota Ozaki <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >> >>> * 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. > > http://www.netbsd.org/~ozaki-r/use-mtag.diff > > Hm, we still need to add a mtag type (it's still better than adding > a flag though). We have an option to reuse PACKET_TAG_NONE, but > it's not good, I think :-/ > > ozaki-r > >> >>> * 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
