Message-ID: <CAGsizzKXgghXPG-XkRXoZBH2n71QaxKs4ynZU993rj-prp8e_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 16 Jan 2012 19:38:45 +0100
From:	Štefan Gula <steweg@...il.com>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Cc:	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch v1, kernel version 3.2.1] net/ipv4/ip_gre: Ethernet
 multipoint GRE over IP

2012/1/16 Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:26:57 +0100
> Štefan Gula <steweg@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> Dňa 16. januára 2012 17:36, Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com> napísal/a:
>> > On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:13:19 +0100
>> > Štefan Gula <steweg@...il.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> From: Stefan Gula <steweg@...il.com
>> >>
>> >> This patch is an extension for current Ethernet over GRE
>> >> implementation, which allows user to create virtual bridge (multipoint
>> >> VPN) and forward traffic based on Ethernet MAC address informations in
>> >> it. It simulates the Bridge bahaviour learing mechanism, but instead
>> >> of learning port ID from which given MAC address comes, it learns IP
>> >> address of peer which encapsulated given packet. Multicast, Broadcast
>> >> and unknown-multicast traffic is send over network as multicast
>> >> enacapsulated GRE packet, so one Ethernet multipoint GRE tunnel can be
>> >> represented as one single virtual switch on logical level and be also
>> >> represented as one multicast IPv4 address on network level.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Gula <steweg@...il.com>
>> >
>> > Thanks for the effort, but it is duplicating existing functionality.
>> > It possible to do this already with existing gretap device and the
>> > current bridge.
>> >
>> > The same thing is also supported by OpenVswitch.
>> >
>>
>> gretap with bridge will not do the same as gretap allows you to only
>> encapsulate L2 frames inside the GRE - this one part is actually
>> utilized in my code. GRE multipoint implementation is also utilized in
>> my code as well. But what is missing is forwarding logic here, which
>> prevents the traffic going not optimal way. Scenario one - e.g. if you
>> connect through 3 sites with using 1 gretap multipoint VPN, it always
>> forwards frames between site 1 and site 2 even if they are unicast.
>> That represents waste of bandwidth for site 3. Now assume that there
>> will be more than 40 sites and I hope you see that single current
>> multipoint gretap is not also good solution here
>>
>> The second scenario - e.g. using 3 sites using point-to-point gretap
>> interfaces between each 2 sites (2 gretap VPN interfaces per site) and
>> bridging those interfaces with real ones results in looped topology
>> which needs to utilized STP inside to prevent loops. Once STP
>> converges the topology will looks like this, traffic from site 1 to
>> site 2 will go always directly by the way of unicast (on GRE level),
>> from site 2 to site 3 always directly by the way of unicast (on GRE
>> level) and from site 1 to site 3 will go indirectly through site 2 due
>> STP limitations, which results in another not optimalized traffic
>> flows. Now assume that the number of sites rises, so gretap+standard
>> bridge code is also not a good solution here.
>>
>> My code utilizes it that way that I have extended the gretap
>> multipoint interface with the forwarding logic e.g. using 3 sites,
>> each site uses only one gretap VPN interface and if destination MAC
>> address is known to bridge code inside the gretap interface forwarding
>> logic, it forwards it towards only VPN endpoint that actually need
>> that by the way of unicasting on GRE level. On the other hand if the
>> destination MAC address is unknown or destination MAC address is L2
>> multicast or L2 broadcast than the frame is spread out through
>> multicasting on GRE level, providing delivery mechanism analogous to
>> standard switches on top of the multipoint GRE tunnels.
>
> Couldn't this be controlled from user space either by programming
> the FDB with netlink or doing alternative version of STP?
For certain small number of clients yes, for many clients it is
administrative nightmare. e.g. I have in my network more than 98 VPN
endpoints and 4k users constantly migrating from one site to another.
This solution provides me flexible way to do this, with no
administrative work.
>
>
>> I also get through briefly over OpenVswitch documentation and found
>> that it is more related to virtualization inside the box like VMware
>> switches or so and not to such technologies interconnecting two or
>> more separate segments over routed L3 infrastructure - there is a
>> mention about the CAPWAP UDP transport but this is more related to
>> WiFi implementations than generic ones. My patch also doesn't need any
>> special userspace api to be configured. It utilizes the existing one.
>
--
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