On 1/31/22 01:20, Adrian Moreno wrote:
On 1/28/22 22:18, Ilya Maximets wrote:
On 1/28/22 17:04, Adrian Moreno wrote:
Introduce OFPFlow class and all its decoders.
Most of the decoders are generic (from decoders.py). Some have special
syntax and need a specific implementation.
Decoders for nat are moved to the common decoders.py because it's syntax
is shared with other types of flows (e.g: dpif flows).
Signed-off-by: Adrian Moreno <[email protected]>
---
python/automake.mk | 2 +
python/ovs/flows/decoders.py | 108 +++++++++
python/ovs/flows/ofp.py | 453 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
python/ovs/flows/ofp_act.py | 243 +++++++++++++++++++
4 files changed, 806 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 python/ovs/flows/ofp.py
create mode 100644 python/ovs/flows/ofp_act.py
diff --git a/python/automake.mk b/python/automake.mk
index b7debfbd9..7b6d6596f 100644
--- a/python/automake.mk
+++ b/python/automake.mk
@@ -31,6 +31,8 @@ ovs_pyfiles = \
python/ovs/flows/flow.py \
python/ovs/flows/kv.py \
python/ovs/flows/list.py \
+ python/ovs/flows/ofp.py \
+ python/ovs/flows/ofp_act.py \
python/ovs/json.py \
python/ovs/jsonrpc.py \
python/ovs/ovsuuid.py \
diff --git a/python/ovs/flows/decoders.py b/python/ovs/flows/decoders.py
index 2f8e5bd0a..1462b0b9d 100644
--- a/python/ovs/flows/decoders.py
+++ b/python/ovs/flows/decoders.py
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ object.
"""
import netaddr
+import re
class Decoder(object):
@@ -414,3 +415,110 @@ class IPMask(Decoder):
def to_json(self):
return str(self)
+
+
+def decode_free_output(value):
+ """The value of the output action can be found free, i.e:
without the
+ 'output' keyword. This decoder decodes its value when found this
way."""
+ try:
+ return "output", {"port": int(value)}
+ except ValueError:
+ return "output", {"port": value.strip('"')}
+
+
+ipv4 = r"(?:\d{1,3}.?){3}\d{1,3}"
+ipv4_capture = r"({ipv4})".format(ipv4=ipv4)
+"""
+The following IPv6 regexp is a modified version of the one in:
+https://community.helpsystems.com/forums/intermapper/miscellaneous-topics/5acc4fcf-fa83-e511-80cf-0050568460e4?_ga=2.113564423.1432958022.1523882681-2146416484.1523557976
+
+It matches all these types of ipv6 addresses:
+fe80:0000:0000:0000:0204:61ff:fe9d:f156
+fe80:0:0:0:204:61ff:fe9d:f156
+fe80::204:61ff:fe9d:f156
+fe80:0000:0000:0000:0204:61ff:254.157.241.86
+fe80:0:0:0:0204:61ff:254.157.241.86
+fe80::204:61ff:254.157.241.86
+::1
+2001::
+fe80::
+"""
+ipv6 =
r"(?:(?:(?:[0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}:){7}(?:[0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}|:))|(?:(?:[0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}:){6}(?::[0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}|(?:(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4]\d|1\d\d|[1-9]?\d)(?:\.(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4]\d|1\d\d|[1-9]?\d)){3})|:))|(?:(?:[0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}:){5}(?:(?:(?::[0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}){1,2})|:(?:(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4]\d|1\d\d|[1-9]?\d)(?:\.(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4]\d|1\d\d|[1-9]?\d)){3})|:))|(?:(?:[0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}:){4}(?:(?:(?::[0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}){1,3})|(?:(?::[0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4})?:(?:(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4]\d|1\d\d|[1-9]?\d)(?:\.(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4]\d|1\d\d|[1-9]?\d)){3}))|:))|(?:(?:[0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}:){3}(?:(?:(?::[0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}){1,4})|(?:(?::[0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}){0,2}:(?:(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4]\d|1\d\d|[1-9]?\d)(?:\.(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4]\d|1\d\d|[1-9]?\d)){3}))|:))|(?:(?:[0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}:){2}(?:(?:(?::[0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}){1,5})|(?:(?::[0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}){0,3}:(?:(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4]\d|1\d\d|[1-9]?\d)(?:\.(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4]\d|1\d\d|[1-9]?\d)){3}))|:))|(?:(?:[0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}:){1}(?:(?:(?::[0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}){1,6})|(?:(?::[0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}){0,4}:(?:(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4]\d|1\d\d|[1-9]?\d)(?:\.(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4]\d|1\d\d|[1-9]?\d)){3}))|:))|(?::(?:(?:(?::[0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}){1,7})|(?:(?::[0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4}){0,5}:(?:(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4]\d|1\d\d|[1-9]?\d)(?:\.(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4]\d|1\d\d|[1-9]?\d)){3}))|:)))"
# noqa: E501
This line seems to be corrupted the patch in patchwork.
In any case, can we not have this line in the patch?
It doesn't look maintainable.
Can we use something like 'ipaddress' module to parse
ip addresses instead?
I agree having this huge blob is not very maintainable, maybe we can
roll back to the previous, more simplistic, regexp.
The goal of this regexp is not to parse the address but to extract it
from the ip/port range where we can have
[ip_start:ip_end]:port_start:port_end. After the substrings are
extracted we use 'netaddr' module to extract it.
I think that regex is not a good choice here. There are too many
variables (IPv4 vs IPv6) and optional parameters (ports may or may not
be present, range may only have one value) that regexes become complex
very quickly. Throw in the fact that ":" is the separator for IPv6
address sections AND is the separator between IP addresses and ports,
plus the fact that the presence of a port changes how to express an IPv6
address, and you're talking about some unmaintainable regexes, even if
they're not as monstrous as the current IPv6 one.
Bets regards, Ilya Maximets.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
