Pull request raised https://github.com/opencomputeproject/OCP-Networking-Project-Community-Contributions/pull/73
-Arun From: chenyq [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 8:13 AM To: Manickam, Arunsubash; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: 答复: [Opencompute-networking] 答复: SAI 0.9.2 questions&topics discussion Hi Arun, Yes, “SAI_SWITCH_ATTR_MAX_LAG_MEMBERS” is sufficient to get the number of LAG members. And NP/ASIC should support the same MAX number per LAG. Another requirement attribute should be “SAI_SWITCH_ATTR_MAX_LAG_NUMBER” which is used describe the MAX number of LAG supported by NP/ASIC. 发件人: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] 发送时间: 2015年4月27日 21:47 收件人: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 主题: RE: [Opencompute-networking] 答复: SAI 0.9.2 questions&topics discussion For some reason I did not get Yuqiang’s response <Yuqiang> LAG number is ASIC/NP capability. For example, some ASIC can support up to 128 LAGs. LAG is a bundle of some physical ports. These physical port are LAG member. ASIC/NP can’t support limitless member, so we ask add this “LAG member number” as LAG capability. For example, some ASIC can support up to 64 members per LAG. Would SAI_SWITCH_ATTR_MAX_LAG_MEMBERS be sufficient. This would be a read only attribute returning the number of LAG members that can be programmed in a LAG supported by a NPU. I assume in a NPU all LAG’s can support the same MAX number so a switch attribute would suffice -Arun From: Jain, Atit [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 4:52 PM To: chenyq; Manickam, Arunsubash; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Opencompute-networking] 答复: SAI 0.9.2 questions&topics discussion Hi, I think following is one area where we need more thoughts: Regards, Atit 1, FDB aging. MAC&VLAN lookups are usually required to find out the output port when performing Route Nexthop operation. But if the MAC is aged, some vendor’s action is flooding this L3 packet in VLAN, and some vendor’s action is discarding the packet and copy_to_cpu. Shall we define the nexthop/neighbor action after MAC aged? <Arun> We have these attributes for the same. Once a MAC ages out there will be look up failure and we have attributes to define the action based on the packet types /* Flood control for packets with unknown destination address. * [sai_packet_action_t] (default to SAI_PACKET_ACTION_FORWARD) */ SAI_SWITCH_ATTR_FDB_UNICAST_MISS_ACTION, SAI_SWITCH_ATTR_FDB_BROADCAST_MISS_ACTION, SAI_SWITCH_ATTR_FDB_MULTICAST_MISS_ACTION, We have different actions defined in packet_action_t �C drop, flood, trap to CPU <Yuqiang> Oh, right. I understand your mean. User can define the action as DROP or FLOOD. If it is NP with Neighbor table supported, OK, there are no problem. If it is ASIC without Neighbor table supported, then it is difficult to support L3 packets FLOOD. Maybe it is a issue.
_______________________________________________ opencompute-networking mailing list Unsubscribe: http://lists.opencompute.org/mailman/options/opencompute-networking [email protected] http://lists.opencompute.org/mailman/listinfo/opencompute-networking
