netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/2] drivers: add vpls support

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CAJieiUhz2dAdGkdQPPfoqzfq3Kg_DzHkWL1+PZbqxhu3KFDeRg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 12 Aug 2017 19:46:28 -0700
From:   Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:     Amine Kherbouche <amine.kherbouche@...nd.com>
Cc:     David Lamparter <equinox@...c24.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drivers: add vpls support

On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 6:40 AM, Amine Kherbouche
<amine.kherbouche@...nd.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 11/08/2017 17:14, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:55 AM, David Lamparter <equinox@...c24.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 10:28:37PM +0200, Amine Kherbouche wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This commit introduces the support of VPLS virtual device, that allows
>>>> performing  L2VPN multipoint to multipoint communication over MPLS PSN.
>>>>
>>>> VPLS device encap received ethernet frame over mpls packet and send it
>>>> the
>>>> output device, in the other direction, when receiving the right
>>>> configured
>>>> mpls packet, the matched mpls route calls the handler vpls function,
>>>> then pulls out the mpls header and send it back the entry point via
>>>> netif_rx().
>>>>
>>>> Two functions, mpls_entry_encode() and mpls_output_possible() are
>>>> exported from mpls/internal.h to be able to use them inside vpls driver.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Amine Kherbouche <amine.kherbouche@...nd.com>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> +union vpls_nh {
>>>> +     struct in6_addr         addr6;
>>>> +     struct in_addr          addr;
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +struct vpls_dst {
>>>> +     struct net_device       *dev;
>>>> +     union vpls_nh           addr;
>>>> +     u32                     label_in, label_out;
>>>> +     u32                     id;
>>>> +     u16                     vlan_id;
>>>
>>> I looked at VLAN support and decided against it because the bridge layer
>>> can handle this perfectly fine by using the bridge's vlan support to tag
>>> a port's pvid.
>>
>> yes, agreed. there is no need for vlan here. The bridge can be
>> configured with the required vlan
>> mapping on the vpls port.
>
> what if the output device cannot handle vlan encapsulation? because on my
> example of configuration in the cover letter, I sent the vpls packets over
> a simple physical net device (not a bridge nor a vlan port).

There are already multiple ways vlan encap is added today, eg vlan
device, under a bridge, using tc etc. I don't think every driver
should carry vlan encap info. see vxlan as an example, it does
not....you can use a bridge or tc etc for the vlan to vni map. You
will need a bridge anyways for fwding db, stp etc in such deployments.

We can add vlan in the future if it becomes necessary. I don't see a need today.