Subject: Re: [RFC net-next v2] bridge lwtunnel, VPLS & NVGRE

From: David Lamparter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 13:32:07 +0200

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 02:01:40PM +0300, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> On 22/08/17 03:01, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > I know the bridge is an easy target to extend L2 forwarding, but it is not
> > the only option. Have you condidered building a new driver (like VXLAN does)
> > which does the forwarding you want. Having all features in one driver
> > makes for worse performance, and increased complexity.
> > 
> 
> +1
> 
> As I said before, a separate implementation will be much cleaner and will not affect
> the bridge in any way, paying both performance and complexity price for something that
> the majority of users will not be using isn't worth it.  In addition this creates a
> silent dependency between the bridge and the fdb metadata dst users, it would be much
> more preferable to be able to run them separately.
> If there is any code that will need to be re-used by VPLS (or anyone else) figure out a way
> to factor it out.

Could you tell me why this argument didn't apply to the bridge vlan
tunnel code?  It adds complexity to the bridge specifically for VXLAN
(and it does *not* transfer to VPLS or 802.11) and reduces performance

... by actually accessing the same metadata that this patchset does.

-David