[frr] 2 MPLS Questions

[David Ahern]

I have the MPLS code changes to bump the number of labels. What did we
want to use for the max? 12? 16?

This limit is really only capping what we take from userspace. Kernel
side memory allocations are done based on the actual number of labels in
the route.


On 3/16/17 10:49 AM, Olivier Dugeon wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> Well, frankly speaking, I don't see where is the problem regarding the
> performance.
> 
> IMHO, the patch add an extra size of the array i.e. from 8 bytes (2
> labels) to 64 bytes (16 labels) which is completely negligible compared
> to the size of a IP packet, and of same magnitude order as a VxLan
> encapsulation and twice less as an IPv6 header.
> 
> In addition, only the edge router as to push the label stack. Then,
> subsequent router just look at the top label. So, no more no less that a
> packet with only 2 labels in the stack.
> 
> I think that dealing with a dynamic MPLS STACK DEPTH i.e. dynamic memory
> allocation of space regarding the number of labels are push in from of
> the IP packet will certainly add more overhead and more CPU cycles
> rather than just manage a fix amount of byte in an array.
> 
> Finally, the default value for the MPLS_LABEL_STACK could be equal to 2
> and let peoples want to deal with Segment Routing recompile the kernel
> with a larger value.
> 
> From my side, your patch will not only increase the label stack, it also
> re-arrange the MPLS structure in order to solve the problem of corrupted
> third label. And, this is the more important things.
> 
> In any case, let me know what I can do to help you.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Olivier
> 
> 
> Le 16/03/2017 à 16:10, David Ahern a écrit :
>> I made the kernel patch to help you move along with your MPLS work.
>>
>> In the kernel thread discussing the increase in number of labels Eric
>> Biederman mentions performance concerns about just increasing the size
>> of the array; he wanted a much more complicated change and I have not
>> gotten around to it.
>>
>>
>> On 3/16/17 3:31 AM, Olivier Dugeon wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> The problem is not between the kernel and iproute2. The problem comes
>>> when stacking more than 2 labels: the LSB byte of the third label is
>>> replaced by 0x03 value i.e. the implicit Null Label value. See attached
>>> thread.
>>>
>>> Following this, David propose a new patch that we integrated and tested
>>> successfully (See second and third attached mail).
>>>
>>> But, after that, I got no news and never seen this patch merge into the
>>> Linux Kernel release. So, we just ask when this patch could be merge
>>> into the Linux Kernel.
>>>
>>> For the second problem about PHP, it is also described in the first
>>> attached thread. But, agree, that this issue is more tricking to solve.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Olivier
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 15/03/2017 à 16:59, David Ahern a écrit :
>>>> On 3/15/17 9:57 AM, Amine Kherbouche wrote:
>>>>>     > 1) More than 2 labels in the kernel at a time, when will this be
>>>>>     > allowed in the kernel?
>>>>>     >
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't understand why iproute2 and kernel are not sync when it comes to
>>>>> the max stacked labels, iproute2 should export kernel headers.
>>>>>
>>>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=146913202123729&w=2
>>>>
>