Re: [PATCH 3/3] vxlan: virtual extensible lan

On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 21:02 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:

Since port is always a pair, there is no need to restrict range, unless
there was a broken firewall in the way. One bug there is that random32()
can return 0 which is not a valid port number.  A better fallback
would be a hash of the MAC header.

But using up to 65536 values for the port means that if vxlan traffic
crosses a statefull firewall (eg netfilter with conntrack), this might
need 65536 contexts/sessions.

So random32() is not needed.

What might be needed is additional parameters for a vxlan tunnel, to
give an optional range for the source port.