Hi, Any other comments? Can I commit this?
ozaki-r On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Ryota Ozaki <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
