t any data path checks.
>
> + if (MBUF_NO_SEC_OFFLOAD(pkt) && sa->fallback_sessions > 0) {
>
> + if (pg->id.val & IPSEC_SA_OFFLOAD_FALLBACK_FLAG) {
>
> @maintainers, Marvell is not blocking this feature anymore assuming that the
&g
> > That's a common iteration development approach that is used though
> > > > whole
> > > > DPDK:
> > > > - provide initial solution with basic functionality first
> > > > - improve/extend with future releases/patches
> > >
> &g
d by us.
Thanks,
Anoob
> -Original Message-
> From: Ananyev, Konstantin
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 4:25 PM
> To: Anoob Joseph ; Smoczynski, MarcinX
> ; akhil.go...@nxp.com
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran ; Narayana
> Prasad Raju Athreya ; Archana
picture.
So my suggestion to maintainers would be to ignore them as not valuable.
Konstantin
>
> Thanks,
> Anoob
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: dev On Behalf Of Ananyev, Konstantin
> > Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2019 8:16 PM
> > To: Ano
being attempted.
Thanks,
Anoob
> -Original Message-
> From: dev On Behalf Of Ananyev, Konstantin
> Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2019 8:16 PM
> To: Anoob Joseph ; Smoczynski, MarcinX
> ; akhil.go...@nxp.com
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran ; Narayana
> Prasa
Hi Anoob,
> > > > > I've few more observations regarding the proposed feature.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. From what I understood, if an ESP packet ends up on an
> > > > > unprotected interface and doesn't have 'PKT_RX_SEC_OFFLOAD' bit
> > > > > set, then the packet
> > > > would be looked up to see th
; Prasad Raju Athreya ; Archana Muniganti
>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/3] add fallback session
>
>
> Hi Anoob,
>
> > > > I've few more observations regarding the proposed feature.
> > > >
> > > > 1. From what I understoo
Hi Anoob,
> > > I've few more observations regarding the proposed feature.
> > >
> > > 1. From what I understood, if an ESP packet ends up on an unprotected
> > > interface and doesn't have 'PKT_RX_SEC_OFFLOAD' bit set, then the packet
> > would be looked up to see the associated SA and then fal
; Prasad Raju Athreya ; Archana Muniganti
>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/3] add fallback session
>
>
> Hi Anoob,
> Answers/comments inline.
> Marcin, please correct me, if I missed something.
> Konstantin
>
> >
> > Hi Marcin, Konstantin,
>
it on their platforms, determine what replay window size
would be needed, what issues/slowdowns it might cause, etc.
>
> Thanks,
> Anoob
>
> > -Original Message-----
> > From: dev On Behalf Of Marcin Smoczynski
> > Sent: Monday, September 23, 2019 5:14 PM
> > To
: Anoob Joseph ; akhil.go...@nxp.com;
> konstantin.anan...@intel.com
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Marcin Smoczynski
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/3] add fallback session
>
> Add fallback session feature allowing to process packets that inline processor
> is unable to handle (e.g. fr
Joseph, is this patchset ok with you after changes? I've changed second
patch description and sample application documentation regarding this
feature.
> -Original Message-
> From: Smoczynski, MarcinX
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2019 1:44 PM
> To: ano...@marvell.com; akhil.go...@nxp.com;
Add fallback session feature allowing to process packets that inline
processor is unable to handle (e.g. fragmented traffic). Processing
takes place in a secondary session defined for SA in a configuration
file.
This feature is limited to ingress IPsec traffic only. IPsec
anti-replay window and ES
13 matches
Mail list logo
