On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Pravin Shelar [off-list ref] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Jiri Benc [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 17:11:56 -0700, Pravin Shelar wrote:
quoted
I dont see point of adding this code when IPv6 sampling not support by
the patch series.
It was requested by Jesse:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/380348
I don't think we can use this function, lwtunnel device need new ndo_
operation to export this information. So lets defer this patch till we
have solution for retrieving egress info from lwtunnel devices.
I don't entirely disagree with this but I'm also nervous about
completely leaving it out. It seems like when this issue does get
fixed, it is likely that the person who does it will just convert
whatever code is there and not necessarily think about IPv6 since it's
not an IPv6 feature. If that happens, we'll have a hidden problem in
IPv6, which is somewhat unfortunately as try to advance IPv6 forward.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Jesse Gross [off-list ref] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Pravin Shelar [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Jiri Benc [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 17:11:56 -0700, Pravin Shelar wrote:
quoted
I dont see point of adding this code when IPv6 sampling not support by
the patch series.
It was requested by Jesse:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/380348
I don't think we can use this function, lwtunnel device need new ndo_
operation to export this information. So lets defer this patch till we
have solution for retrieving egress info from lwtunnel devices.
I don't entirely disagree with this but I'm also nervous about
completely leaving it out. It seems like when this issue does get
fixed, it is likely that the person who does it will just convert
whatever code is there and not necessarily think about IPv6 since it's
not an IPv6 feature. If that happens, we'll have a hidden problem in
IPv6, which is somewhat unfortunately as try to advance IPv6 forward.
The code is pretty different for different tunnel. It is possible to
take the code and reuse it. But that would involve lot of refactoring
into existing code for every flow tunnel based tunnel implementation.
I do not want to do it as part of fix to net branch.
I have sent out patch to fix the egress tunnel info issue with
lwtunnel. Once that is merged we can have complete IPv6 tunnel support
on net-next.