Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 04:35:41PM CET, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com wrote:

On 3/26/14, 2:31 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:

quoted

Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:27:05PM CET, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com wrote:

quoted

On 3/26/14, 11:03 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:

quoted

Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 06:47:15PM CET, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com wrote:

quoted

On 3/26/14, 9:59 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:

quoted

Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 05:54:17PM CET, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com wrote:

quoted

On 3/26/14, 3:54 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:

quoted

On 03/26/14 01:37, Roopa Prabhu wrote:

quoted

On 3/25/14, 1:11 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:

quoted

2014-03-25 12:35 GMT-07:00 Neil Horman [off-list ref]:

Sorry about getting on this thread late and possibly in the middle.
Agree on the idea of keeping the ports linked to the master switch dev
(or the 'conduit' to the switch chip) via private list instead of the
master-slave relationship proposed earlier.
By private i mean the netdev->priv linkage to the master switch dev and
not really keeping the ports from being exposed to the user.

We think its better to keep the switch ports exposed as any other netdev
on linux.
 This approach will make the switch ports look exactly like a nic port
and all tools will continue to work seamlessly. The switch port
operations could internally be forwarded to the switch netdev (sw1 in
the above case).

example:
$ip link set dev sw1p0 up
$ethtool -S sw1p0

I like the approach. I know the above is a simple version, but i am
assuming you also mean i can do things like
ip route add ...
bridge fdb add ... (and if you like your brctl go ahead)
bonding ...

yes, exactly.  We support this model on our boxes today.
User can bond switch ports on our box in the exact same way as he/she
would bond two nic ports.
Our 'conduit to switch chip' reflects the corresponding lag
configuration in the switch chip.
Same goes for bridging, routing, acls.

So you implement bonding netlink api? Or you hook into bonding driver
itselt? Can you show us the code?

We use the netlink API and libnl. In our current model, our switch
chip driver listens to netlink notifications and programs the switch
chip. The switch chip driver uses libnl caches and libnl netlink apis
to reflect the kernel state to switch chip.

So when you configure for example bonding over 2 ports, you actually use
bonding driver to do that. And you userspace app listens to
notifications and programs the switch chip accordingly. Am I close?

yes correct.

quoted

How about data? Is this new "bonding" interface able to assign ip to is
and send/receive packets.

yes

quoted

I'm still not sure I understand your concept. Do you have some
documentation for it available?

I think the only documentation available today in this area is the
user guide and that in-turn points to native linux command manpages
iproute2, sysfs, debian ifupdown etc.
I will see if i can find anything else.

I ment the architecture design documentation. linux manpages are not
that interesting to me :)

yes, i get that and thats why i did not include a pointer to our user
guide. :).
Sorry, the easiest thing to find right now was a high level marketing
diagram and here you go:
http://cumulusnetworks.com/product/architecture/. This is nothing but
what i mentioned in my emails.
From here the details involve nothing but programming the broadcom
asic. This is mostly broadcom details/documentation.

The above is our current working/shipping model.

In our second phase of implementation, We wanted to preserve the
above user interface model (which people using our boxes are very
fond of), but introduce the concept of a switchdev and switchports in
the kernel.
We had a switchdev api in the works ourselves which we were planning
to publish on netdev until you beat us to it.
Our version is similar to yours but it reflects some of the points
that i have brought up in my previous emails.
It probably looks more like your v2 (patch 4/6) without the
master/slave link.

Yes, I was thinking about this some more and I plan to remove this
implicit master/slave link in the next version.

We can share some code in the comming weeks. It does need some
cleanup and i am also waiting for scott feldman who is on vacation
this week.

I know you are looking for specifics, but we don't have switchdev
code to create a bond in switch chip asic yet. But we have been
thinking about the details and the current thought there at a high
level was, we would add a netdev op which the bonding driver could
redirect to the switchdev driver when it has slaves with
IFF_SWITCH_PORT set.

I was thinking about this as well. I believe that if this have to be
done, it should be done on RTNL level, not as a hack to
bond/bridge/whatever code.

Thanks,
Roopa