08/01/2021 10:29, Andrew Rybchenko: > On 1/8/21 11:57 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > On 1/8/2021 1:41 AM, Zhang, Qi Z wrote: > >> From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > >>> 07/01/2021 16:24, Zhang, Qi Z: > >>>> From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > >>>>> 07/01/2021 13:47, Zhang, Qi Z: > >>>>>> From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > >>>>>>> 07/01/2021 10:32, Guo, Jia: > >>>>>>>> From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > >>>>>>>>> 24/12/2020 07:59, Jeff Guo: > >>>>>>>>>> --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h > >>>>>>>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h > >>>>>>>>>> @@ -1219,6 +1219,7 @@ enum rte_eth_tunnel_type { > >>>>>>>>>> RTE_TUNNEL_TYPE_IP_IN_GRE, > >>>>>>>>>> RTE_L2_TUNNEL_TYPE_E_TAG, > >>>>>>>>>> RTE_TUNNEL_TYPE_VXLAN_GPE, > >>>>>>>>>> + RTE_TUNNEL_TYPE_ECPRI, > >>>>>>>>>> RTE_TUNNEL_TYPE_MAX, > >>>>>>>>>> }; > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We tried to remove all these legacy API in DPDK 20.11. > >>>>>>>>> Andrew decided to not remove this one because it is not yet > >>>>>>>>> completely replaced by rte_flow in all drivers. > >>>>>>>>> However, I am against continuing to update this API. > >>>>>>>>> The opposite work should be done: migrate to rte_flow. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Agree but seems that the legacy api and driver legacy > >>>>>>>> implementation still keep in this release, and there is no a > >>>>>>>> general way to replace the legacy by rte_flow right now. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think rte_flow is a complete replacement with more features. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thomas, I may not agree with this. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Actually the "enum rte_eth_tunnel_type" is used by > >>>>>> rte_eth_dev_udp_tunnel_port_add A packet with specific dst udp > >>>>>> port will be recognized as a specific tunnel packet type (e.g. > >>>>>> vxlan, vxlan-gpe, > >>>>> ecpri...) In Intel NIC, the API actually changes the configuration > >>>>> of the packet parser in HW but not add a filter rule and I guess all > >>>>> other devices may enable it in a similar way. > >>>>>> so naturally it should be a device (port) level configuration but > >>>>>> not a rte_flow > >>>>> rule for match, encap, decap... > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't understand how it helps to identify an UDP port if there is > >>>>> no rule for this tunnel. > >>>>> What is the usage? > >>>> > >>>> Yes, in general It is a rule, it matches a udp packet's dst port > >>>> and the action is > >>> "now the packet is identified as vxlan packet" then all other > >>> rte_flow rules that > >>> match for a vlxan as pattern will take effect. but somehow, I think > >>> they are > >>> not rules in the same domain, just like we have dedicate API for > >>> mac/vlan filter, > >>> we'd better have a dedicate API for this also. ( RFC for Vxlan > >>> explains why we > >>> need this. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7348). > >>>> > >>>> "Destination Port: IANA has assigned the value 4789 for the VXLAN UDP > >>>> port, and this value SHOULD be used by default as the destination UDP > >>>> port. Some early implementations of VXLAN have used other values for > >>>> the destination port. To enable interoperability with these > >>>> implementations, the destination port SHOULD be configurable." > >>> > >>> Yes the port number is free. > >>> But isn't it more natural to specify this port number as part of the > >>> rte_flow > >>> rule? > >> > >> I think if we have a rte_flow action type that can be used to set a > >> packet's tunnel type xxx, like below > >> #flow create eth/ipv4/udp port is 4789/... action set_tunnel_type > >> VxLAN / end > >> then we may replace it with rte_flow, but I'm not sure if it's > >> necessary, please share if you have a better idea.
Of course we can specify the UDP port in rte_flow rule. Please check rte_flow_item_udp. That's a basic of rte_flow. > > Isn't this more a device configuration than filtering, not sure about > > using rte_flow for this. > > +1 A device configuration? No, setting an UDP port is a stack configuration. > >> BTW, are we going to move all other filter like mac , VLAN > >> filter/strip/insert into rte_flow finally? Yes I think it should be the direction. All of this can be achieved with rte_flow. > >> if that's the plan, though I don't have much inputs for this right > >> now, but I think we may not need to prevent new features be added > >> based on current API if it does not introduce more complexity and not > >> break anything. If we continue updating old API, we are just forking ourself: having 2 APIs for the same feature is a non-sense. We must remove APIs which are superseded by rte_flow.