Hi Ferruh, I don't think that having the flexibility to specify the Geneve protocol in the command line will have an added value. The reason is that any Geneve setup has a fixed protocol number for the duration of the test lifetime (fixed and synched by all the peers in the lab). The protocol number is not dynamic. So even if we could specify the protocol in the command line - it would be a onetime setting after testpmd startup. Therefore, it is simpler to have it as parameter only.
Regards, Ophir > -----Original Message----- > From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:31 PM > To: Ophir Munk <ophi...@nvidia.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Wenzhuo Lu > <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; Beilei Xing <beilei.x...@intel.com>; Bernard > Iremonger <bernard.iremon...@intel.com> > Cc: Ophir Munk <ophi...@mellanox.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/3] app/testpmd: enable configuring > GENEVE port > > On 8/27/2020 8:02 AM, Ophir Munk wrote: > > From: Ophir Munk <ophi...@mellanox.com> > > > > IANA has assigned port 6081 as the fixed well-known destination port > > for GENEVE. Nevertheless draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-09 recommends that > > implementations make this configurable. This commit enables > > specifying any positive UDP destination port number for GENEVE. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ophir Munk <ophi...@mellanox.com> > > --- > > app/test-pmd/parameters.c | 13 ++++++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/app/test-pmd/parameters.c b/app/test-pmd/parameters.c > > index 7cb0e3d..0d135b0 100644 > > --- a/app/test-pmd/parameters.c > > +++ b/app/test-pmd/parameters.c > > @@ -70,7 +70,8 @@ usage(char* progname) > > "--rxpt= | --rxht= | --rxwt= | --rxfreet= | " > > "--txpt= | --txht= | --txwt= | --txfreet= | " > > "--txrst= | --tx-offloads= | | --rx-offloads= | " > > - "--vxlan-gpe-port= ]\n", > > + "--vxlan-gpe-port= ] " > > + "--geneve-port= ]\n", > > progname); > > Hi Ophir, > > Is there a command line to update the geneve port? > > I can see there are some parameter for other tunneling too, but do you find > providing parameter useful? I think command line better since it is more > flexible, what do you think?
