>
> Thanks Darrell. I have sent patches for branch 2.8 and 2.9.
> For branches before 2.7 & 2.6 it is giving quite a few conflicts.
> Can you please have a look at it?
>
Hi Darrell, Ben
I have tried manual merge on OVS 2.6 branch and sent a patch.
Can you please review and apply it on branch?
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 06:58:51AM +, Vishal Deep Ajmera wrote:
>
> >
> > Thanks
> > This is eligible to go back to 2.6; it should apply cleanly back to 2.9; I
> > can look into the remaining ones,
> > unless Vishal would like to do those.
>
> Thanks Darrell. I have sent patches for branch
>
> Thanks
> This is eligible to go back to 2.6; it should apply cleanly back to 2.9; I
> can look into the remaining ones,
> unless Vishal would like to do those.
Thanks Darrell. I have sent patches for branch 2.8 and 2.9.
For branches before 2.7 & 2.6 it is giving quite a few conflicts.
Can
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 7:37 AM Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 04:59:02PM -0700, Darrell Ball wrote:
> > The ICMPv4 error data L4 length check was found to be too strict for TCP,
> > expecting a minimum of 20 rather than 8 bytes. This worked by
> > hapenstance for other inner
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 04:59:02PM -0700, Darrell Ball wrote:
> The ICMPv4 error data L4 length check was found to be too strict for TCP,
> expecting a minimum of 20 rather than 8 bytes. This worked by
> hapenstance for other inner protocols. The approach is to explicitly
> handle the ICMPv4
The ICMPv4 error data L4 length check was found to be too strict for TCP,
expecting a minimum of 20 rather than 8 bytes. This worked by
hapenstance for other inner protocols. The approach is to explicitly
handle the ICMPv4 error data L4 length check and to do this for all
supported inner
