[V1 0/5] support VXLAN-GPE header fields(flags, rsvd0 and rsvd1) matching

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 23:48:31 +0100
Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net> wrote:

> 19/02/2024 20:50, Stephen Hemminger:
> > On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 10:02:05 +0200
> > Gavin Li <gavinl at nvidia.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > Previously, VXLAN-GPE in DPDK only supports VNI and next protocol header
> > > fields. This patch series add support for flags and reserved field 0 and
> > > 1.
> > > 
> > > Below is the VXLAN-GPE header defined in the lasted draft.
> > >     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    |
> > >    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  
> > 
> > Would recommend against implementing anything in a draft RFC.
> > Things can change.  Learned the hard way when doing VXLAN driver for Linux.
> > The hardcoded port value in the Linux VXLAN driver is wrong because it matched
> > the draft RFC (got changed in final version). Because of strict compatibility
> > requirements the Linux driver could not be changed to the correct value.  
> 
> The problem is that standardization may be slow.
> Would it be acceptable without any compatibility guarantee?

Never mark it stable until RFC is done.