Message-ID: <43F901BD926A4E43B106BF17856F0755F63A0B62@orsmsx508.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:15:25 -0700
From:	"Rose, Gregory V" <gregory.v.rose@...el.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:	Ben Pfaff <blp@...ira.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: RE: [rfc] Merging the Open vSwitch datapath

>-----Original Message-----
>From: netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org [mailto:netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org]
>On Behalf Of Arnd Bergmann
>Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 2:05 PM
>To: Rose, Gregory V
>Cc: Ben Pfaff; netdev@...r.kernel.org; Jesse Gross; Stephen Hemminger;
>Chris Wright; Herbert Xu; David Miller
>Subject: Re: [rfc] Merging the Open vSwitch datapath
>
>On Monday 30 August 2010 20:45:19 Rose, Gregory V wrote:
>> As of now there are no existing ways to get switch configuration to a
>> NIC without resorting to a customized interface such as a private
>IOCTL.
>
>Well, there are the IFLA_VF_INFO netlink attributes that I would
>assume are to be used for switch configuration and extended where
>required for that, e.g. to set VEPA mode per channel.
>
>> EVB is an emerging standard that I think would be desirable to support
>> in the kernel.
>
>Do you mean 802.1Qbg?

Yes, and 802.1Qbh.

 Why would you want kernel support? There is
>already support for VEPA in the kernel, and 802.1ad provider bridges
>should probably be added in order to support multi-channel setups.

I should probably read up a bit more on 802.1ad.

>
>The other parts are configuration protocols like LLDP and CDP, which
>we normally do in user space (e.g. lldpad).
>
>What else is there that you think should go into the kernel.

It seems to me that the IFLA_VF_INFO netlink attributes are station oriented.  The kernel support I see there is insufficient for some other things that need to be done for access control, forwarding rules and actions taken on certain kind of packets.  I think there'll be a need to configure the switch itself, not just the stations attached to the switch.

>
>> As you mention netlink is easier to extend and I think
>> it would be a great way to add support for NIC EVB in the kernel.
>> But even with a kernel interface there is still no user level tool.
>
>Using the same interface as Open vSwitch would be really nice to
>configure a NIC bridge sounds interesting if we want to speed up
>Open vSwitch, but I don't think it makes any sense for the EVB
>protocols. Quite the contrary, you typically want the NIC to
>get out of the way and do all the bridging in the external
>switch in case of VEPA. Or you actually want to use features of
>the software bridge implementation like iptables.

What if the NIC is the external switch?  I mean, what if the NIC has an edge virtual bridge embedded in it?  The IFLA_VF_INFO messages are sufficient for many features but there are some that it doesn't address.  And I don't know of any way to get iptables rules down to the VF using existing kernel interfaces.  Perhaps I missed something.

>
>One idea that we have discussed in the past is to use the macvlan
>netlink interface to create ports inside a NIC. This interface
>already exists in the kernel, and it allows both bridged and VEPA
>interfaces. The main advantage of this is that the kernel can
>transparently create ports either using software macvlan or
>hardware accelerated functions where available.

This actually sounds like a good idea.  I hadn't thought about that.  It would cover one of the primary issues I'm dealing with right now.

- Greg

--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists