From: Gavin Li <gavinl@nvidia.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
orika@nvidia.com, andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru,
Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, jiaweiw@nvidia.com
Subject: Re: [RFC V1 1/1] net: extend VXLAN header to support more extensions
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 12:03:08 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8acace68-a65c-4097-a600-47e629d4a111@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6f109cc9-87a1-43a0-8b13-190ee263be1c@nvidia.com>
On 2/19/2024 11:44 AM, Gavin Li wrote:
>
>
> On 2/9/2024 11:32 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> 09/02/2024 15:58, Ferruh Yigit:
>>> On 2/9/2024 1:44 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>> 09/02/2024 13:11, Ferruh Yigit:
>>>>> On 2/9/2024 10:12 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>>>> 09/02/2024 00:54, Ferruh Yigit:
>>>>>>> On 1/30/2024 11:25 AM, Gavin Li wrote:
>>>>>>>> Currently, DPDK supports VXLAN and VXLAN-GPE with similar header
>>>>>>>> structures and we are working on adding support for VXLAN-GBP
>>>>>>>> which is
>>>>>>>> another extension to VXLAN. More extension of VXLAN may be added
>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>> future.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> VXLAN and VXLAN-GBP use the same UDP port(4789) while VXLAN-GPE
>>>>>>>> uses a
>>>>>>>> different one, 4790. The three protocols have the same header
>>>>>>>> length and
>>>>>>>> overall similar header structure as below.
>>>>>>>> 0 1 2 3
>>>>>>>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
>>>>>>>> 0 1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>>>>>> |R|R|R|R|I|R|R|R|
>>>>>>>> Reserved |
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>>>>>> | VXLAN Network Identifier (VNI) |
>>>>>>>> Reserved |
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Figure 1: VXLAN Header
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 0 1 2 3
>>>>>>>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
>>>>>>>> 0 1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>>>>>> |R|R|Ver|I|P|B|O| Reserved |Next
>>>>>>>> Protocol |
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>>>>>> | VXLAN Network Identifier (VNI) |
>>>>>>>> Reserved |
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Figure 2: VXLAN-GPE Header
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 0 1 2 3
>>>>>>>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
>>>>>>>> 0 1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>>>>>> |G|R|R|R|I|R|R|R|R|D|R|R|A|R|R|R| Group Policy
>>>>>>>> ID |
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>>>>>> | VXLAN Network Identifier (VNI) |
>>>>>>>> Reserved |
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Figure 3: VXLAN-GBP Extension
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Both VXLAN-GPE and VXLAN-GBP extended VXLAN by redefining its
>>>>>>>> reserved
>>>>>>>> bits, which means the packets can be processed with same pattern
>>>>>>>> and most
>>>>>>>> of the code can be reused. Instead of adding more new items by
>>>>>>>> copying/pasting code for the VXLAN extensions in the future,
>>>>>>>> it’s better
>>>>>>>> to use existing VXLAN infrastructure and add support code in it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Gavin,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The motivation is to prevent code duplication, and the code
>>>>>>> mentioned is
>>>>>>> the driver code, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The motivation is mainly to provide a unified and more explicit API.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From user perspective, I think existing approach is more explicit,
>>>>> because it sets VXLAN or VXLAN_GPE flow types.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am trying to understand the benefit, how unifying flow type in
>>>>> the API
>>>>> helps to the user?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Overall OK to unify "struct rte_vxlan_hdr" although it makes the
>>>>>>> struct
>>>>>>> a little complex, perhaps we can consider extraction some nested
>>>>>>> structs
>>>>>>> as named struct, no strong opinion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But not sure about removing the flow item types for VXLAN-GPE, or
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> adding for VXLAN-GBP.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Think about a case user adding a rule, which has a item type as
>>>>>>> VXLAN
>>>>>>> and in the protocol header some bits are set, lets say first
>>>>>>> word, last
>>>>>>> byte is set, how driver will know if to take it as GPE "next
>>>>>>> protocol"
>>>>>>> or "group policy id".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The driver may decide depending on the UDP port and some
>>>>>> distinguishing flags.
>>>>>> If you want to match on GBP, you should includes the GBP flag in
>>>>>> your pattern,
>>>>>> no need to use a separate item.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not be more explicit?
>>>>> It helps to driver to know more about the pattern to be able to create
>>>>> proper flow rule, if there is an obvious way for driver to
>>>>> differentiate
>>>>> these protocol extensions, and flow item type is redundant, I can
>>>>> understand the proposal, but otherwise I think better to keep flow
>>>>> items
>>>>> for extensions.
>>>>
>>>> In any case we need the simple VXLAN item.
>>>> If we have GPE and GBP specialized items,
>>>> what means a match on the simple VXLAN?
>>>> Does it include packets with other extensions or exclude them?
>>>> Matching the bits in the protocol make such decision explicit.
>>>>
>>>>> When a rule is set in HW, HW may not care about the protocol, as
>>>>> long as
>>>>> bits in the rule match with the packet, HW can apply the action.
>>>>> But for driver to be able to set the rule properly, it needs more
>>>>> explicit information.
>>>>
>>>> Yes information is in the pattern to match.
>>>>
>>>>> Lets assume driver API get a pattern with 'RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_VXLAN'
>>>>> type and "struct rte_flow_item_vxlan", at this point driver doesn't
>>>>> know
>>>>> if it is VXLAN or any of the extensions.
>>>>
>>>> Yes it knows because of the matched bits in the pattern.
>>>> If the rule specify a match on GBP flag = 1, it is GBP only.
>>>> If the rule specify a match on GBP flag = 0, it excludes GBP.
>>>> If the rule does not mask GBP flag, it includes GBP.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> OK, VXLAN-GBP protocol has a GBP flag that gives a way to differentiate
>>> the extension, so flow item for it becomes redundant and we can get rid
>>> of it.
>>
>> Yes I think so.
>>
>>> Is it same for the other extensions?
>>> If we use VXLAN flow item and by setting specific field in pattern can
>>> we differentiate VXLAN and any other extension?
>>> Or in some cases other information, like UDP port, needs to be taken
>>> into account to differentiate protocol/extension?
>>
>> For VXLAN-GPE, differentiation is on UDP port.
>> Remember we have an API to fill some UDP ports:
>> rte_eth_dev_udp_tunnel_port_add with RTE_ETH_TUNNEL_TYPE_VXLAN_GPE
>>
>> The UDP port value/mask may be part of the flow rule pattern.
>>
>>
>>> I found a spec for VXLAN-GBP, but it shows as sub-header for VXLAN-GPE,
>>> different than what this RFC describes:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lemon-vxlan-gpe-gbp
>>>
>>> Can you please share link for VXLAN-GBP Extension spec?
>>
>> I will let Gavin explain here, I'm not an expert.
>
> Sorry for the wrong format of my last mail. Let me try again.
>
> The RFC mentioned, aka draft-lemon-vxlan-gpe-gbp was to define VXLAN-GBP
> as a sub header of VXLAN-GPE by assigning a next protocol num of
> VXLAN-GPE for VXLAN-GBP, which has been obsoleted since
> draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-09, the latest is
> draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-13. It was temporarily valid from
> draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-05 to draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-08.
>
> The VXLAN-GBP we are discussing in this thread is an VXLAN extension
> parallel to VXLAN-GPE.
>
> The RFC introduced VXLAN-GBP sub header to VXLAN-GPE is
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-05.
>
> The RFC obsoleted the sub header is
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-09.
>
> The latest RFC of VXLAN-GPE is
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-13.
And the latest RFC of VXLAN-GPB is
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-smith-vxlan-group-policy-05.
>
>
>>
>>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-19 4:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-30 11:25 [RFC V1 0/1] " Gavin Li
2024-01-30 11:25 ` [RFC V1 1/1] " Gavin Li
2024-02-06 22:51 ` Thomas Monjalon
2024-02-07 4:49 ` Ajit Khaparde
2024-02-08 23:54 ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-02-09 10:12 ` Thomas Monjalon
2024-02-09 12:11 ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-02-09 13:44 ` Thomas Monjalon
2024-02-09 14:58 ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-02-09 15:32 ` Thomas Monjalon
2024-02-09 15:58 ` Ferruh Yigit
2024-02-19 3:16 ` Gavin Li
2024-02-19 3:44 ` Gavin Li
2024-02-19 4:03 ` Gavin Li [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8acace68-a65c-4097-a600-47e629d4a111@nvidia.com \
--to=gavinl@nvidia.com \
--cc=andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@amd.com \
--cc=jiaweiw@nvidia.com \
--cc=orika@nvidia.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).