Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov(lumag) replied on github web page:
include/odp/api/spec/packet.h
line 17
@@ -71,6 +71,51 @@ extern "C" {
* Packet is red
*/
+/**
+ * Protocol
+ */
+typedef enum odp_proto_t {
+ /** No protocol defined */
+ ODP_PROTO_NONE = 0,
+
+ /** Ethernet (including VLAN) */
+ ODP_PROTO_ETH,
+
+ /** IP (including IPv4 and IPv6) */
+ ODP_PROTO_IP,
+
+ /** UDP */
Comment:
I felt easier to reparse both L3 and L4 headers in IPsec case, especially since
transport mode ESP can en/decrypt some of L3 headers in IPv6 case.
> Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov(lumag) wrote:
> @Bill-Fischofer-Linaro In IPsec case Next Header field will contain 4 for
> IPv4 and 41 for IPv6.
>> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote:
>> That might be overly complicated since until a decrypted tunnel mode IPsec
>> packet is parsed you don't know whether it's IPv4 or IPv6. It's parsing that
>> makes that determination.
>>> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote:
>>> @lumag IPsec operating in transport mode is, I'd imagine, the main use case
>>> here.
>>>> Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov(lumag) wrote:
>>>> What is the usecase for parsing a packet starting from L4 header? Also
>>>> there are several (lots) of other L4 protocols. Do we want to support them
>>>> all here?
>>>>> Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov(lumag) wrote:
>>>>> Maybe it would be better to split this into separate IPv4 and IPv6
>>>>> packets. It would be an error to pass IPv6 packet with ethtype (or IP
>>>>> tunnel type) being set to IPv4.
>>>>>> Petri Savolainen(psavol) wrote:
>>>>>> A vector of packets is CPU vector instructions friendly.
>>>>>>> Petri Savolainen(psavol) wrote:
>>>>>>> The use case is mentioned in log message: parse after decrypt/IP
>>>>>>> reassembly. Application has recreated an inner packet and needs to
>>>>>>> parse it before continue. This is inherently SW parse which may be
>>>>>>> accelerated with CPU vector instructions, etc.
>>>>>>>> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote:
>>>>>>>> What's the use case for a multi() form of this API? Might VPP use it?
>>>>>>>> Perhaps Sachin can comment?
>>>>>>>>> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> We had considered an `odp_packet_parse()` function some time back but
>>>>>>>>> it was rejected as something that would not fit well with hardware
>>>>>>>>> parsers. What's changed?
https://github.com/Linaro/odp/pull/273#discussion_r149461865
updated_at 2017-11-07 18:31:45
