On 10/26/23 14:05, Odintsov Vladislav wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> On 19 Oct 2023, at 17:06, Vladislav Odintsov via discuss
>> <ovs-discuss@openvswitch.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 18 Oct 2023, at 18:43, Ilya Maximets via discuss
>>> <ovs-discuss@openvswitch.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/18/23 16:24, Vladislav Odintsov wrote:
>>>> Hi Ilya,
>>>>
>>>> thanks for your response!
>>>>
>>>>> On 18 Oct 2023, at 15:59, Ilya Maximets via discuss
>>>>> <ovs-discuss@openvswitch.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/17/23 16:30, Vladislav Odintsov via discuss wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’m testing OVS hardware offload with tc flower with Mellanox/NVidia
>>>>>> ConnectX-6 Dx smartnic and see next warning in ovs-vswitchd log:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2023-10-17T14:23:15.116Z|00386|tc(handler20)|WARN|Kernel flower
>>>>>> acknowledgment does not match request! Set dpif_netlink to dbg to see
>>>>>> which rule caused this error.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With dpif_netlink debug logs enabled, after this message appears two
>>>>>> additional lines:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2023-10-17T14:23:15.117Z|00387|dpif_netlink(handler20)|DBG|added flow
>>>>>> 2023-10-17T14:23:15.117Z|00388|dpif_netlink(handler20)|DBG|system@ovs-system:
>>>>>> put[create] ufid:d8a3ab6d-77d1-4574-8bbf-634b01a116f3
>>>>>> recirc_id(0),dp_hash(0/0),skb_priority(0/0),tunnel(tun_id=0x10,src=10.1.0.105,dst=10.1.0.109,ttl=64/0,tp_src=59507/0,tp_dst=6081/0,geneve({class=0x102,type=0x80,len=4,0x60002}),flags(-df+csum+key)),in_port(4),skb_mark(0/0),ct_state(0/0x2f),ct_zone(0/0),ct_mark(0/0),ct_label(0/0x3),eth(src=00:00:ba:a4:6e:ad,dst=00:01:ba:a4:6e:ad),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(src=172.32.2.4/0.0.0.0,dst=172.32.1.4/0.0.0.0,proto=1,tos=0/0x3,ttl=63/0,frag=no),icmp(type=8/0,code=0/0),
>>>>>>
>>>>>> actions:set(tunnel(tun_id=0xff0011,src=10.1.0.109,dst=10.1.1.18,ttl=64,tp_src=59507,tp_dst=6081,geneve({class=0x102,type=0x80,len=4,0x18000b}),flags(df|csum|key))),4
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you also enable debug logs for 'tc' module in OVS?
>>>>> It shoudl give more infomation about where exactly is the
>>>>> difference between what OVS asked for and what the kenrel
>>>>> reported back.
>>>>>
>>>>> In general this warning typically signifies a kernel bug,
>>>>> but it could be that OVS doesn't format something correctly
>>>>> as well.
>>>>
>>>> With enabled tc logs I see mismatches in expected/real keys and actions:
>>>>
>>>> 2023-10-18T13:33:35.882Z|00118|tc(handler21)|DBG|tc flower compare failed
>>>> action compare
>>>> Expected Mask:
>>>> 00000000 ff ff 00 00 ff ff ff ff-ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff
>>>> 00000030 00 00 2f 00 00 00 00 00-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>> 00000040 03 00 00 00 00 00 00 00-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>> 00000050 00 00 00 00 ff ff ff ff-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>> 00000060 00 00 00 00 ff 00 00 00-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>> 00000090 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00-ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff
>>>> 000000c0 ff 00 00 00 ff ff 00 00-ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff
>>>> 000000d0 08 00 00 00 00 00 00 00-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>> 000000e0 ff ff ff 01 ff ff ff ff-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>>
>>>> Received Mask:
>>>> 00000000 ff ff 00 00 ff ff ff ff-ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff
>>>> 00000030 00 00 2f 00 00 00 00 00-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>> 00000040 03 00 00 00 00 00 00 00-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>> 00000050 00 00 00 00 ff ff ff ff-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>> 00000060 00 00 00 00 ff 00 00 00-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>> 00000090 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00-ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff
>>>> 000000c0 ff 00 00 00 ff ff 00 00-ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff
>>>> 000000d0 08 00 00 00 00 00 00 00-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>> 000000e0 ff ff ff 01 ff ff ff ff-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>>
>>>> Expected Key:
>>>> 00000000 08 06 00 00 ff ff ff ff-ff ff 00 00 ba a4 6e ad
>>>> 00000050 a9 fe 64 01 a9 fe 64 03-00 00 ba a4 6e ad 00 00 <— mismatch in
>>>> this line
>>>> 00000060 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 00-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>> 00000090 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00-0a 01 00 68 0a 01 00 6d
>>>> 000000c0 00 40 c0 5b 17 c1 00 00-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 10 <— mismatch in
>>>> this line
>>>> 000000d0 08 00 00 00 00 00 00 00-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>> 000000e0 01 02 80 01 00 03 00 02-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>>
>>>> Received Key:
>>>> 00000000 08 06 00 00 ff ff ff ff-ff ff 00 00 ba a4 6e ad
>>>> 00000050 00 00 00 00 a9 fe 64 03-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 <— mismatch in
>>>> this line
>>>> 00000060 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 00-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>> 00000090 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00-0a 01 00 68 0a 01 00 6d
>>>> 000000c0 00 00 00 00 17 c1 00 00-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 10 <— mismatch in
>>>> this line
>>>> 000000d0 08 00 00 00 00 00 00 00-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>> 000000e0 01 02 80 01 00 03 00 02-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>
>>> These are not very important, it is expected that the kernel clears out
>>> fields that are not coverd by a mask. We do not have the difference
>>> in the masks and we do not have a diference in the masked keys, so that
>>> is fine.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Expected Masked Key:
>>>> 00000000 08 06 00 00 ff ff ff ff-ff ff 00 00 ba a4 6e ad
>>>> 00000050 00 00 00 00 a9 fe 64 03-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>> 00000060 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 00-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>> 00000090 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00-0a 01 00 68 0a 01 00 6d
>>>> 000000c0 00 00 00 00 17 c1 00 00-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 10
>>>> 000000d0 08 00 00 00 00 00 00 00-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>> 000000e0 01 02 80 01 00 03 00 02-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>>
>>>> Received Masked Key:
>>>> 00000000 08 06 00 00 ff ff ff ff-ff ff 00 00 ba a4 6e ad
>>>> 00000050 00 00 00 00 a9 fe 64 03-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>> 00000060 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 00-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>> 00000090 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00-0a 01 00 68 0a 01 00 6d
>>>> 000000c0 00 00 00 00 17 c1 00 00-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 10
>>>> 000000d0 08 00 00 00 00 00 00 00-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>> 000000e0 01 02 80 01 00 03 00 02-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>>
>>>> Action 0 mismatch:
>>>
>>> We do have the difference in the actions, that is the main issue here.
>>>
>>>> - Expected Action:
>>>> 0x1000000000000000000000000ff0011c05b17c1004000000a01006d0a010112000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000008000000000000000000000000000000010280010018000b00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000100000000000000
>>>> - Received Action:
>>>> 0x1000000000000000000000000ff0011000017c1004000000a01006d0a010112000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000008000000000000000000000000000000010280010018000b00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000100000000000000
>>>> 2023-10-18T13:33:35.882Z|00119|tc(handler21)|WARN|Kernel flower
>>>> acknowledgment does not match request! Set dpif_netlink to dbg to see
>>>> which rule caused this error.
>>>> 2023-10-18T13:33:35.882Z|00120|dpif_netlink(handler21)|DBG|added flow
>>>> 2023-10-18T13:33:35.882Z|00121|dpif_netlink(handler21)|DBG|system@ovs-system:
>>>> put[create] ufid:dc160f96-84ef-4bf7-919a-3729c19382b8
>>>> recirc_id(0),dp_hash(0/0),skb_priority(0/0),tunnel(tun_id=0x10,src=10.1.0.104,dst=10.1.0.109,ttl=64/0,tp_src=49243/0,tp_dst=6081/0,geneve({class=0x102,type=0x80,len=4,0x30002}),flags(-df+csum+key)),in_port(4),skb_mark(0/0),ct_state(0/0x2f),ct_zone(0/0),ct_mark(0/0),ct_label(0/0x3),eth(src=00:00:ba:a4:6e:ad,dst=ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff),eth_type(0x0806),arp(sip=169.254.100.1/0.0.0.0,tip=169.254.100.3,op=1,sha=00:00:ba:a4:6e:ad/00:00:00:00:00:00,tha=00:00:00:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00:00),
>>>>
>>>> actions:set(tunnel(tun_id=0xff0011,src=10.1.0.109,dst=10.1.1.18,ttl=64,tp_src=49243,tp_dst=6081,geneve({class=0x102,type=0x80,len=4,0x18000b}),flags(df|csum|key))),4
>>>>
>>>> Is there any documentation or maybe code in OVS (or kernel, etc) to read
>>>> to understand the reason for this mismatch in more details?
>>>> Or, maybe you have a good next steps to advice?
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, that is just a direct hex dump of the tc_action structure:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/openvswitch/ovs/blob/c29ba54018520f957c48d947325ed50c9442b831/lib/tc.h#L233
>>>
>>> <https://github.com/openvswitch/ovs/blob/c29ba54018520f957c48d947325ed50c9442b831/lib/tc.h#L233>
>>>
>>> The only way to figure out what exactly is wrong here is to find which
>>> bytes in the expected and received actions are different and find which
>>> field in the tc_action structure the difference is in. That's not fun.
>>>
>>> The following patch may make the spotting the difference a little easier:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lib/tc.c b/lib/tc.c
>>> index f85703633..39fe9c5cc 100644
>>> --- a/lib/tc.c
>>> +++ b/lib/tc.c
>>> @@ -3875,12 +3875,13 @@ log_tc_flower_match(const char *msg,
>>>
>>> for (int i = 0; i < a->action_count; i++, action_a++, action_b++) {
>>> if (memcmp(action_a, action_b, sizeof *action_a)) {
>>> - ds_put_format(&s,
>>> - "\nAction %d mismatch:\n - Expected Action:
>>> ",
>>> - i);
>>> - ds_put_hex(&s, action_a, sizeof *action_a);
>>> + ds_put_format(&s, "\nAction %d mismatch:"
>>> + "\n - Expected Action:\n", i);
>>> + ds_put_sparse_hex_dump(&s, action_a, sizeof *action_a,
>>> + 0, false);
>>> ds_put_cstr(&s, "\n - Received Action: ");
>>> - ds_put_hex(&s, action_b, sizeof *action_b);
>>> + ds_put_sparse_hex_dump(&s, action_b, sizeof *action_b,
>>> + 0, false);
>>> }
>>> }
>>> }
>>> ---
>>>
>>> You may also need to use something like pahole on your OVS binary
>>> to see the exact layout of the structure.
>>
>> Unfortunately, I’m not experienced with pahole, so need some assistance from
>> you if possible.
>> I’ve built OVS with modified RPM spec file adding '--with-debug' to
>> configure flags.
>> Then I’ve installed the rebuilt openvswitch and openvswitch-debuginfo RPMs
>> and ran pahole, but got error "unable to find type":
>>
>> # pahole -C tc_action
>> /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libopenvswitch-3.1.so.0.0.3-3.1.3-1.el8_4.x86_64.debug
>> WARNING: DW_TAG_partial_unit used, some types will not be considered!
>> Probably this was optimized using a tool like 'dwz'
>> A future version of pahole will support this.
>> pahole: type 'tc_action' not found
>>
>> I’m sure there should be a trivial mistake, but I couldn’t solve it.
You probbaly need a newer version of pahole... But I'm not a huge expert
in it either. I'm usually running it against non-stripped binaries.
But I'm convinced the analysis below is correct.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The difference seems to be in these 2 bytes:
>>>
>>> 0x 1000000000000000000000000ff0011c05b17c1004000000a01006d0a010112
>>> 0x 1000000000000000000000000ff0011000017c1004000000a01006d0a010112
>>> ^^^^
>>> So, 16 byte offset within the structure. Let's guess it is an encap
>>> field. Then it must be encap.tp_src. And that checks out, because
>>> 0xc05b equals 49243, which is indeed a source port for the tunnel
>>> encapsulation.
>>>
>>> So, it seems like for some reason kernel decided to not populate
>>> the tunnel source port in the tunnel key after decapsulation,
>>> even though it was asked to do so.
>>>
>>> @Eelco, @Marcelo, do you have some thoughts on that?
>>>
>
> Eelco, Marcelo, if you have any comments here, I’d be very happy to get them.
> Thanks in advance.
I posted a patch to continue the conversation:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/openvswitch/patch/20231030140031.75157-1-i.maxim...@ovn.org/
>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The test system is a CentOS 8.4 with installed elrepo mainline kernel
>>>>>> 6.5.5, OVS 3.1.1 and OVN 22.09.1.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3.1.1 contains some known bugs in TC offloading code, so
>>>>> you may want to try the latest 3.1.3. Though it's unlikely
>>>>> to be related ot the issue you're facing here.
>>>>
>>>> I’ve upgraded OVS to 3.1.3 to eliminate the possible known OVS bugs, but
>>>> this didn’t help.
>>>> Same warnings and mismatches still are reported.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The workload I’m testing is a L3 Gateway for OVN IC (cross-az traffic).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> tc monitor at the same moment outputs next:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> replaced filter dev genev_sys_6081 ingress protocol ip pref 2 flower
>>>>>> chain 0 handle 0x3
>>>>>> dst_mac 00:01:ba:a4:6e:ad
>>>>>> src_mac 00:00:ba:a4:6e:ad
>>>>>> eth_type ipv4
>>>>>> ip_proto icmp
>>>>>> ip_tos 0/0x3
>>>>>> enc_dst_ip 10.1.0.109
>>>>>> enc_src_ip 10.1.0.105
>>>>>> enc_key_id 16
>>>>>> enc_dst_port 6081
>>>>>> enc_tos 0
>>>>>> geneve_opts 0102:80:00060002/ffff:ff:ffffffff
>>>>>> ip_flags nofrag
>>>>>> ct_state -trk-new-est
>>>>>> ct_label
>>>>>> 00000000000000000000000000000000/030000000000000000000000000000
>>>>>> in_hw in_hw_count 2
>>>>>> action order 1: tunnel_key unset pipe
>>>>>> index 5 ref 1 bind 1
>>>>>> no_percpu
>>>>>> used_hw_stats delayed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> action order 2: tunnel_key set
>>>>>> src_ip 10.1.0.109
>>>>>> dst_ip 10.1.1.18
>>>>>> key_id 16711697
>>>>>> dst_port 6081
>>>
>>> And we can see here, TC only populates the dst_port, not the src_port
>>> into the tunnel key, even though the source port was in the tunnel(set())
>>> action OVS requested.
>>>
>>>>>> geneve_opts 0102:80:0018000b
>>>>>> csum
>>>>>> ttl 64 pipe
>>>>>> index 6 ref 1 bind 1
>>>>>> no_percpu
>>>>>> used_hw_stats delayed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> action order 3: mirred (Egress Redirect to device genev_sys_6081) stolen
>>>>>> index 3 ref 1 bind 1
>>>>>> cookie 6daba3d87445d1774b63bf8bf316a101
>>>>>> no_percpu
>>>>>> used_hw_stats delayed
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Despite of these warnings, the flow is finally offloaded and the traffic
>>>>>> traverses this gw node well, only first packets of an ICMP sequence
>>>>>> reach CPU (seen in tcpdump):
>>>>>
>>>>> The warning is a warning. It doesn't prevent the flow to be installed.
>>>>> Though the installed flow may be incorrect and the traffic may be
>>>>> handled in the wrong way. Enabling debug logs for tc should show what
>>>>> exacltly is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> # ovs-appctl dpctl/dump-flows type=offloaded
>>>>>> tunnel(tun_id=0x10,src=10.1.0.107,dst=10.1.0.109,tp_dst=6081,geneve({class=0x102,type=0x80,len=4,0x50002}),flags(+key)),ct_state(-new-est-rel-rpl-trk),ct_label(0/0x3),recirc_id(0),in_port(4),eth(src=00:00:ba:a4:6e:ad,dst=00:01:ba:a4:6e:ad),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(proto=1,tos=0/0x3,frag=no),
>>>>>> packets:3192, bytes:312816, used:1.240s,
>>>>>> actions:set(tunnel(tun_id=0xff0011,src=10.1.0.109,dst=10.1.1.18,ttl=64,tp_dst=6081,geneve({class=0x102,type=0x80,len=4,0x18000b}),flags(csum|key))),4
>>>>>> tunnel(tun_id=0xff0011,src=10.1.1.18,dst=10.1.0.109,tp_dst=6081,geneve({class=0x102,type=0x80,len=4,0xb0018}),flags(+key)),ct_state(-new-est-rel-rpl-trk),ct_label(0/0x3),recirc_id(0),in_port(4),eth(src=00:01:ba:a4:6e:ad,dst=00:00:ba:a4:6e:ad),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(src=172.32.1.0/255.255.255.0,dst=172.32.0.4,proto=1,tos=0/0x3,ttl=63,frag=no),
>>>>>> packets:3192, bytes:312816, used:1.240s,
>>>>>> actions:set(tunnel(tun_id=0x11,src=10.1.0.109,dst=10.1.0.107,ttl=64,tp_dst=6081,geneve({class=0x102,type=0x80,len=4,0x10002}),flags(csum|key))),set(eth(src=d0:fe:00:00:00:1d,dst=0a:00:66:ec:f7:40)),set(ipv4(ttl=62)),4
>>>>>> tunnel(tun_id=0x10,src=10.1.0.105,dst=10.1.0.109,tp_dst=6081,geneve({class=0x102,type=0x80,len=4,0x60002}),flags(+key)),ct_state(-new-est-rel-rpl-trk),ct_label(0/0x3),recirc_id(0),in_port(4),eth(src=00:00:ba:a4:6e:ad,dst=00:01:ba:a4:6e:ad),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(proto=1,tos=0/0x3,frag=no),
>>>>>> packets:293, bytes:28714, used:1.240s,
>>>>>> actions:set(tunnel(tun_id=0xff0011,src=10.1.0.109,dst=10.1.1.18,ttl=64,tp_dst=6081,geneve({class=0x102,type=0x80,len=4,0x18000b}),flags(csum|key))),4
>>>>>> tunnel(tun_id=0xff0011,src=10.1.1.18,dst=10.1.0.109,tp_dst=6081,geneve({class=0x102,type=0x80,len=4,0xb0018}),flags(+key)),ct_state(-new-est-rel-rpl-trk),ct_label(0/0x3),recirc_id(0),in_port(4),eth(src=00:01:ba:a4:6e:ad,dst=00:00:ba:a4:6e:ad),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(src=172.32.1.0/255.255.255.0,dst=172.32.2.4,proto=1,tos=0/0x3,ttl=63,frag=no),
>>>>>> packets:293, bytes:28714, used:1.240s,
>>>>>> actions:set(tunnel(tun_id=0x17,src=10.1.0.109,dst=10.1.0.105,ttl=64,tp_dst=6081,geneve({class=0x102,type=0x80,len=4,0x10002}),flags(csum|key))),set(eth(src=d0:fe:00:00:00:8e,dst=0a:00:40:c2:76:a0)),set(ipv4(ttl=62)),4
>>>>>> tunnel(tun_id=0x10,src=10.1.0.104,dst=10.1.0.109,tp_dst=6081,geneve({class=0x102,type=0x80,len=4,0x30002}),flags(+key)),ct_state(-new-est-rel-rpl-trk),ct_label(0/0x3),recirc_id(0),in_port(4),eth(src=00:00:ba:a4:6e:ad,dst=00:01:ba:a4:6e:ad),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(proto=6,tos=0/0x3,frag=no),
>>>>>> packets:0, bytes:0, used:never,
>>>>>> actions:set(tunnel(tun_id=0xff0011,src=10.1.0.109,dst=10.1.1.18,ttl=64,tp_dst=6081,geneve({class=0x102,type=0x80,len=4,0x18000b}),flags(csum|key))),4
>>>>>> tunnel(tun_id=0xff0011,src=10.1.1.18,dst=10.1.0.109,tp_dst=6081,geneve({class=0x102,type=0x80,len=4,0xb0018}),flags(+key)),ct_state(-new-est-rel-rpl-trk),ct_label(0/0x3),recirc_id(0),in_port(4),eth(src=00:01:ba:a4:6e:ad,dst=00:00:ba:a4:6e:ad),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(src=169.254.96.0/255.255.252.0,dst=169.254.99.0,proto=6,tos=0/0x3,ttl=254,frag=no),
>>>>>> packets:0, bytes:0, used:never,
>>>>>> actions:set(tunnel(tun_id=0xe,src=10.1.0.109,dst=10.1.0.104,ttl=64,tp_dst=6081,geneve({class=0x102,type=0x80,len=4,0x20001}),flags(csum|key))),set(eth(src=10:00:ba:a4:6e:ad,dst=02:00:ba:a4:6e:ad)),set(ipv4(ttl=253)),4
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’m wonder, whether this is a known issue (I couldn’t find any related
>>>>>> messages searching in internet).
>>>>>> Could someone give any advice/help with this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Vladislav Odintsov
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>> disc...@openvswitch.org <mailto:disc...@openvswitch.org>
>>>>> <mailto:disc...@openvswitch.org <mailto:disc...@openvswitch.org>>
>>>>> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
>>>>> <https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss>
>>>>> <https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
>>>>> <https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Vladislav Odintsov
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> disc...@openvswitch.org <mailto:disc...@openvswitch.org>
>>> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
>>> <https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Vladislav Odintsov
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> disc...@openvswitch.org <mailto:disc...@openvswitch.org>
>> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
>> <https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss>
>
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
disc...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
