[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111130070647.GC32630@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 15:06:47 +0800
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To: Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>
Cc: jhs@...atatu.com, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, dev@...nvswitch.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL v2] Open vSwitch
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:18:02PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
>
> The main part that worries me about moving to a different approach is
> the impedance mismatch that occurs from the fact that Open vSwitch is
> modeling a switch and tc is not. As Jamal alluded to above, it's
> actually the bridge code which is more conceptually similar. In my
> experience, combining two disparate models makes things harder over
> the long run, not easier. It also tends to show up more in some of
> the edges like userspace/kernel compatibility.
>From what I've seen in the kernel part of OVS, the most striking
thing is that it has almost nothing to do with a switch/bridge :)
In fact, if you got rid of those data path objects, and just did
things based off the vports, I reckon it would still work and do
pretty much the same thing.
For example, if you wanted you could actually use the same mechanism
to do routing.
However, I don't think we need to distract ourselves by these
grand visions right now, as the OVS patch AFAICS is sufficiently
self-contained that it does not constrain us from future changes
like this.
Cheers,
--
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
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