Dear all,
I am sure If I could send email to this mailling-list when I have some
Questions about Click.
If It's not appropriate, Please skip this email; but I would be thanksful if
some do me some favor to answer.
Q. 1/
FromDevice(eth1)->
c::Classifier(12/0806 20/0001,
12/0806 20/0002,
12/0800,
-);
I would find that all the packet are sent to c[3]
FromDevice(eth1)->Strip(14)->cip::CheckIPHeader->IPClassifier->IPPrint(ip)->Discard;
cip[1]->Discard;
I would find that some IP packet also output warning msg "cip: IP header check
failed: bad IP version "
Q. 2/
My Project is flexable, so I want to use some configure files, which store host
name, host interface and their ip.
So how can I use that configure file?
Q. 3/
About script,
s :: Script(set x 0,
label begin_loop,
print $x,
set x $(s.add $x 1),
goto begin_loop $(s.lt $x 5),
);
this code runs well and output "0 1 2 3 4", but
s :: Script(set x 0,
label begin_loop,
print $x,
set x $(s.add $x 1),
goto begin_loop $(s.lt $x 5),
);
InfiniteSource(DATA \<00 00 c0 ae 67 ef 00 00 00 00 00 00 08 00
45 00 00 28 00 00 00 00 40 11 77 c3 01 00 00 01
02 00 00 02 13 69 13 69 00 14 d6 41 55 44 50 20
70 61 63 6b 65 74 21 0a>, LIMIT 10, STOP true)
-> Strip(14)
-> Align(4, 0) // in case we're not on x86
-> cih::CheckIPHeader()
->IPPrint(ip)
->c::Counter
->Discard;
those code runs well, but the output have no "0 1 2 3 4"
and
s :: Script(set x 0,
label begin_loop,
print $x,
set x $(s.add $x 1),
goto begin_loop $(s.lt $x 5),
);
//InfiniteSource(DATA \<00 00 c0 ae 67 ef 00 00 00 00 00 00 08 00
//5 00 00 28 00 00 00 00 40 11 77 c3 01 00 00 01
//02 00 00 02 13 69 13 69 00 14 d6 41 55 44 50 20
//70 61 63 6b 65 74 21 0a>, LIMIT 10, STOP true)
// -> Strip(14)
// -> Align(4, 0) // in case we're not on x86
// -> cih::CheckIPHeader()
// ->IPPrint(ip)
// ->c::Counter
// ->Discard;
//
//Idle->Queue->Discard;
FromDevice(eth1)->Strip(14)->Align(4,0)->cih::CheckIPHeader->IPPrint(ip)->Discard;
can works as i expect.
so could anybody tell me why?
2011-02-20
Justok Jiang|蒋小可
发件人： click-request
发送时间： 2011-02-20 01:01:51
收件人： click
抄送：
主题： click Digest, Vol 92, Issue 25
Send click mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/click
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of click digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Question about cooperating elementclasses (Bobby Longpocket)
2. Re: Question about cooperating elementclasses (Philip Prindeville)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:04:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Bobby Longpocket <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Click] Question about cooperating elementclasses
To: Philip Prindeville <[email protected]>, Eddie
Kohler <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
I like the idea of moving packet queuing into ARPQuerier proper.
There may be reasons that packets need to stay on the same path whether or not
they hit address resolution. If nothing else, it makes packet flow easier to
follow.
To make sure the 'right' ARPQuerier is awakened to send pending packets, just
use external click logic. If the existing configuration doesn't ensure that
the sender of a query will receive the response, then just Tee() the ARP input
to all the related ARPQueriers.
I like the idea on a more superficial level because I don't like that something
called "ARPTable" has gotten into the packet storage business.
--- On Thu, 2/17/11, Eddie Kohler <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Eddie Kohler <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Click] Question about cooperating elementclasses
> To: "Philip Prindeville" <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Date: Thursday, February 17, 2011, 2:36 PM
> But in this case, right, it doesn't
> actually matter whether we map packets to
> the "correct" ARPQuerier?? We don't expect many
> packets to get dropped, or
> even queued; it's not super performance sensitive.?
> It'd definitely be easier
> to emit packets to SOME Querier than it would be to emit
> them to the ENQUEUING
> ARPQuerier.
>
> Eddie
>
>
> On 02/17/2011 01:28 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> > Yes, busted.
> >
> > It's a RouterBricks thing.
> >
> > And yes, you guessed exactly right.
> >
> >
> > On 2/17/11 11:32 AM, Eddie Kohler wrote:
> >> Hey Philip,
> >>
> >> Thanks for your patience...
> >>
> >> It is certainly possible that ARPQuerier should do
> the queueing instead of
> >> ARPTable.
> >>
> >> The "logic" for for the current behavior is as
> follows: ARP responses are
> >> sensitive to a given NIC, so if multiple
> ARPQueriers share an ARPTable, it's
> >> OK that all queued packets are emitted from
> *WHICHEVER* ARPQuerier happens
> >> to receive the response.
> >>
> >> I don't completely buy this "logic". But could you
> explain more about your
> >> application, to help me understand the ideal final
> behavior? Why do you want
> >> to share ARPTables? Is this a sort of a
> RouterBricks thing, where you have
> >> multiple ARPQueriers on different threads, writing
> to multiple output queues
> >> on THE SAME output NIC?
> >>
> >> Eddie
> >>
> >>
> >> On 02/12/2011 11:22 AM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> >>> I wanted to make a change to ARPTable which
> would give it the ability to
> >>> invoke a hook back to ARPQuerier when it
> deletes queued up packages, but
> >>> wasn't sure if there's a clean way to do
> this.
> >>>
> >>> In C, I'd just set a pointer to a callback
> function, but this isn't C.
> >>>
> >>> So what's the best way to do it? Keep in mind
> that the ARPTable might have
> >>> been
> >>>
> >>> Also, it's the case that the same ARPTable
> instance might be shared amongst
> >>> several ARPQuerier instances (because we're in
> a multi-core environment
> >>> with several threads running on the same
> NIC).
> >>>
> >>> Oh, one other question about ARPTable vs.
> ARPQuerier interactions... if I
> >>> have that same situation where I'm running
> multithreaded, and a response
> >>> packet gets delivered to one ARPQuerier,
> thereby updating the ARPTable...
> >>> will the queued up packets in each instance of
> the ARPQueriers get updated
> >>> and unblock the packets?
> >>>
> >>> Or are the queued packets actually held by the
> ARPTable (and therefore in a
> >>> single place)?
> >>>
> >>> Looking at how ARPQuerier::handle_ip() and
> ARPQuerier::handle_response()
> >>> interact, it looks like the packets are all
> held by the ARPTable, and when
> >>> the queue gets drained, all drained by the
> same instance... so any affinity
> >>> of individual packets to threads is lost.
> >>>
> >>> Packet *cached_packet;
> >>> arpt->insert(ipa, ena,&cached_packet);
> >>>
> >>> while (cached_packet) {
> >>> Packet *next = cached_packet->next();
> >>> handle_ip(cached_packet, true);
> >>> cached_packet = next;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Correct?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks.
> >>>
> >>> -Philip
> >
> _______________________________________________
> click mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/click
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:00:45 -0800
From: Philip Prindeville <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Click] Question about cooperating elementclasses
To: Eddie Kohler <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Don't agree. I don't care if they get run on the same thread, but I definitely
want the flow through the system maintained...
Can't really go into all the reasons on the list without compromising my
employer's intellectual property, however.
On 2/17/11 2:36 PM, Eddie Kohler wrote:
> But in this case, right, it doesn't actually matter whether we map packets to
> the "correct" ARPQuerier? We don't expect many packets to get dropped, or
> even queued; it's not super performance sensitive. It'd definitely be easier
> to emit packets to SOME Querier than it would be to emit them to the
> ENQUEUING ARPQuerier.
>
> Eddie
>
>
> On 02/17/2011 01:28 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>> Yes, busted.
>>
>> It's a RouterBricks thing.
>>
>> And yes, you guessed exactly right.
>>
>>
>> On 2/17/11 11:32 AM, Eddie Kohler wrote:
>>> Hey Philip,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your patience...
>>>
>>> It is certainly possible that ARPQuerier should do the queueing instead of
>>> ARPTable.
>>>
>>> The "logic" for for the current behavior is as follows: ARP responses are
>>> sensitive to a given NIC, so if multiple ARPQueriers share an ARPTable, it's
>>> OK that all queued packets are emitted from *WHICHEVER* ARPQuerier happens
>>> to receive the response.
>>>
>>> I don't completely buy this "logic". But could you explain more about your
>>> application, to help me understand the ideal final behavior? Why do you want
>>> to share ARPTables? Is this a sort of a RouterBricks thing, where you have
>>> multiple ARPQueriers on different threads, writing to multiple output queues
>>> on THE SAME output NIC?
>>>
>>> Eddie
>>>
>>>
>>> On 02/12/2011 11:22 AM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>>>> I wanted to make a change to ARPTable which would give it the ability to
>>>> invoke a hook back to ARPQuerier when it deletes queued up packages, but
>>>> wasn't sure if there's a clean way to do this.
>>>>
>>>> In C, I'd just set a pointer to a callback function, but this isn't C.
>>>>
>>>> So what's the best way to do it? Keep in mind that the ARPTable might have
>>>> been
>>>>
>>>> Also, it's the case that the same ARPTable instance might be shared amongst
>>>> several ARPQuerier instances (because we're in a multi-core environment
>>>> with several threads running on the same NIC).
>>>>
>>>> Oh, one other question about ARPTable vs. ARPQuerier interactions... if I
>>>> have that same situation where I'm running multithreaded, and a response
>>>> packet gets delivered to one ARPQuerier, thereby updating the ARPTable...
>>>> will the queued up packets in each instance of the ARPQueriers get updated
>>>> and unblock the packets?
>>>>
>>>> Or are the queued packets actually held by the ARPTable (and therefore in a
>>>> single place)?
>>>>
>>>> Looking at how ARPQuerier::handle_ip() and ARPQuerier::handle_response()
>>>> interact, it looks like the packets are all held by the ARPTable, and when
>>>> the queue gets drained, all drained by the same instance... so any affinity
>>>> of individual packets to threads is lost.
>>>>
>>>> Packet *cached_packet;
>>>> arpt->insert(ipa, ena,&cached_packet);
>>>>
>>>> while (cached_packet) {
>>>> Packet *next = cached_packet->next();
>>>> handle_ip(cached_packet, true);
>>>> cached_packet = next;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Correct?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> -Philip
>>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
click mailing list
[email protected]
https://amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/click
End of click Digest, Vol 92, Issue 25
*************************************
_______________________________________________
click mailing list
[email protected]
https://amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/click
