netdev - Re: MPLS for Linux kernel

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:09:31 +0100
From:	Igor Maravić <igorm@....rs>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: MPLS for Linux kernel

OK,
Thanks

2011/11/22 David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>:
> From: Igor Maravić <igorm@....rs>
> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 22:41:44 +0100
>
>> I would like to know what is necesary for MPLS implementation to have,
>> and to do, so it would be accepted in upstream kernel?
>
> A long and laborious back and forth review process, taking into consideration
> not just the technical details of the patches themselves, but the top level
> and overall design.
>
> That's what it will take.
>
> Taking someone else's work, fixing all the bugs and cleaning them up is
> far from sufficient for a feature of this nature.  There is natural
> overlap all over and we have to make sure the implementation bits are
> going into the right places.
>
> One issue of constant contention is that people want to add all of their
> favorite packet filtering and packet mangling into their protocol handling
> code, with all kinds of custom controls and configuration mechanisms.
>
> WE HATE THIS.
>
> We have the packet scheduler classifiers and packet actions for a reason,
> and we want them to used instead of ignored.
>
> We are going through the same thing in the review process for the openvswitch
> code, which brings up another design question for MPLS, which is whether MPLS
> can be better implemented in terms of openvswitch.
>
> You're in the unfortunate position of submitting a feature that has a
> lot of overlap with many other subsystems, existing code, and features
> being submitted at the same time.  We want as much reuse as possible,
> and we want it all designed right before it gets integrated.
>
> I frankly don't care very much about MPLS personally, it's such a
> fringe facility.  So if people just argue themselves into oblivion and
> no forward progress is made, just like last time an MPLS submission
> was attempted, that's also fine with me :-)
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html