Re: refactoring ip_output() and the L2 _output()

[Ryota Ozaki <ozaki-r%netbsd.org@localhost>]

Hi,

Any other comments? Can I commit this?

  ozaki-r

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Ryota Ozaki <ozaki-r%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
> Thanks to kefren@ we have more MPLS tests. I confirmed my patch
> passes the tests.
>
> Thanks,
>   ozaki-r
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Ryota Ozaki <ozaki-r%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Ryota Ozaki <ozaki-r%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 7:55 PM, Mihai Chelaru <chelaru%gmail.com@localhost> wrote:
>>>> On 26/05/15 05:42, Ryota Ozaki wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> The mail subject may recall someone an old thread:
>>>>> https://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-net/2013/02/01/msg003847.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I'm taking over the task :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.netbsd.org/~ozaki-r/refactor_l2_output.diff
>>>>>
>>>>> The patch is basically the same as dyoung's patch with some
>>>>> tweaks to make it work on -current; it gets rid of route
>>>>> lookups from L2 output routines such as ether_output
>>>>> and puts them between ip_output and L2 output routines.
>>>>>
>>>>> One known issue of the change is that it adds an mbuf flag
>>>>> to tell ether_output that mbuf is to be set MPLS ether
>>>>> type. I don't think it's the best way but I don't have
>>>>> another better approach for now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any comments or suggestions are welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>    ozaki-r
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi there,
>>>>
>>>> I have some questions/observations:
>>>>
>>>> * This cod is generic enough to be linked apart from ip_output.c Maybe it
>>>> can be reused by other protocols as well ? (hint nd6_output)
>>>
>>> I think so, but not tried yet. I'll try tomorrow.
>>>
>>>> * did this patch passed the current net tests ?
>>>
>>> Yes!
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now about MPLS:
>>>>
>>>> * I'm kinda reluctant in using flags to describe protocol specifics, maybe
>>>> should use a tag for now instead of flags even if this interface is slower ?
>>>
>>> Sure. So we can postpone to add something. We would have a better solution then.
>>
>> http://www.netbsd.org/~ozaki-r/use-mtag.diff
>>
>> Hm, we still need to add a mtag type (it's still better than adding
>> a flag though). We have an option to reuse PACKET_TAG_NONE, but
>> it's not good, I think :-/
>>
>>   ozaki-r
>>
>>>
>>>> * I think flagging/tagging should also be used in mpls LSE - probably in
>>>> send_frame.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure. Without flagging/tagging for LSE, all tests of MPLS pass.
>>>
>>>> * and also in ip6 output path. I'll try to find time this week to write some
>>>> tests for ip6/mpls - but you can test using route.
>>>> * mpls/gre needs also to be hacked because it uses the same test (have to
>>>> write a test for mpls+gre, too)
>>>
>>> Such tests are welcome! We need much more tests for networking.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>   ozaki-r