netdev - Re: [RFC net-next 3/3] mpls: new ipmpls device for encapsulating IP packets as mpls

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]

Message-ID: <556E1AD0.1010304@brocade.com>
Date:	Tue, 2 Jun 2015 22:06:24 +0100
From:	Robert Shearman <rshearma@...cade.com>
To:	roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
CC:	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
	Dinesh Dutt <ddutt@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	"Vivek Venkatraman" <vivek@...ulusnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 3/3] mpls: new ipmpls device for encapsulating
 IP packets as mpls

On 02/06/15 19:57, roopa wrote:
> On 6/2/15, 9:33 AM, Robert Shearman wrote:
>> On 02/06/15 17:15, roopa wrote:
>>> On 6/1/15, 9:46 AM, Robert Shearman wrote:
>>>> Allow creating an mpls device for the purposes of encapsulating IP
>>>> packets with:
>>>>
>>>>    ip link add type ipmpls
>>>>
>>>> This device defines its per-nexthop encapsulation data as a stack of
>>>> labels, in the same format as for RTA_NEWST. It uses the encap data
>>>> which will have been stored in the IP route to encapsulate the packet
>>>> with that stack of labels, with the last label corresponding to a
>>>> local label that defines how the packet will be sent out. The device
>>>> sends packets over loopback to the local MPLS forwarding logic which
>>>> performs all of the work.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Maybe a silly question, but when you loop the packet back, what does the
>>> local MPLS forwarding logic
>>> lookup with ? It probably assumes there is a mpls route with that label
>>> and nexthop.
>>> Will this need any internal labels (thinking same label stack different
>>> tunnel device etc) ?
>>
>> Yes, it requires that local/internal labels have been allocated and
>> label routes installed in the label table for them.
> This is our only concern.
>>
>> It is entirely possible to put the outgoing interface into the encap
>> data to avoid having to allocate extra labels, but I did it this way
>> in order to support PIC Core for MPLS-VPN routes.
>
> hmm..., is a netdevice must in this case.., can you please elaborate on
> this ?.

Yes, the ipmpls device would still be used to perform the encapsulation, 
transitioning from the IP forwarding path to the MPLS forwarding path.

Thanks,
Rob
--
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