On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 05:28:26PM +, Mickey Spiegel wrote:
> > Could you expand on why priorities in a single stage aren't enough to
> > satisfy the use case?
> >
> >
> > If two features are configured independently with a
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 05:28:26PM +, Mickey Spiegel wrote:
> Could you expand on why priorities in a single stage aren't enough to
> satisfy the use case?
>
>
> If two features are configured independently with a mix of
> prioritized allow and drop rules, then with a single stage, a
> new
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Mickey Spiegel <
>>>>>>> mickeys@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Mickey Spie
:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Mickey Spiegel <
>>>>>> emspi...@us.ibm.com>
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > -"dev&q
>>>> > >
>>>>> > > -----"dev" <dev-boun...@openvswitch.org> wrote: -
>>>>> > >> To: Mickey Spiegel <mickeys@gmail.com>
>>>>> > >> From: Russell Bryant
>>>>> &g
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Guru Shetty wrote:
>
>
> On 2 August 2016 at 12:27, Russell Bryant wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Guru Shetty wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2 August 2016 at 12:01, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 2 August 2016 at 12:27, Russell Bryant wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Guru Shetty wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 2 August 2016 at 12:01, Russell Bryant wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Guru Shetty wrote:
>>>
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Guru Shetty wrote:
>
>
> On 2 August 2016 at 12:01, Russell Bryant wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Guru Shetty wrote:
>>
>>> The 2 ct_commit for deletion of firewall rules will likely be tricky.
>>>
On 2 August 2016 at 12:01, Russell Bryant wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Guru Shetty wrote:
>
>> The 2 ct_commit for deletion of firewall rules will likely be tricky. This
>> will need unit tests.
>>
>
> I don't think I understand the concern. Can you
29, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Mickey Spiegel <emspi...@us.ibm.com
>>>> >
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > -"dev" <dev-boun...@openvswitch.org> wrote: -
>>>> > >> To: Mickey Spiegel <mickeys@gmail.com>
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Guru Shetty wrote:
> The 2 ct_commit for deletion of firewall rules will likely be tricky. This
> will need unit tests.
>
I don't think I understand the concern. Can you expand a bit on what you
mean by "2 ct_commit for deletion of firewall rules"?
ot; <dev-boun...@openvswitch.org> wrote: -
>>> > >> To: Mickey Spiegel <mickeys....@gmail.com>
>>> > >> From: Russell Bryant
>>> > >> Sent by: "dev"
>>> > >> Date: 07/29/2016 10:02AM
>>> > >
>> From: Russell Bryant
>> > >> Sent by: "dev"
>> > >> Date: 07/29/2016 10:02AM
>> > >> Cc: ovs dev <dev@openvswitch.org>
>> > >> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] ovn: Add second ACL stage
>> > >>
>> &g
ot;dev" <dev-boun...@openvswitch.org> wrote: -
> >> > >> To: Mickey Spiegel <mickeys....@gmail.com>
> >> > >> From: Russell Bryant
> >> > >> Sent by: "dev"
> >> > >> Date: 07/2
t;
> > > -"dev" <dev-boun...@openvswitch.org> wrote: -
> > >> To: Mickey Spiegel <mickeys@gmail.com>
> > >> From: Russell Bryant
> > >> Sent by: "dev"
> > >> Date: 07/29/2016 10:02AM
> > >
iegel <mickeys@gmail.com>
> >> From: Russell Bryant
> >> Sent by: "dev"
> >> Date: 07/29/2016 10:02AM
> >> Cc: ovs dev <dev@openvswitch.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] ovn: Add second ACL stage
> >>
> >&g
gt;> Date: 07/29/2016 10:02AM
>> Cc: ovs dev <dev@openvswitch.org>
>> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] ovn: Add second ACL stage
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Mickey Spiegel <mickeys@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> This pa
-"dev" <dev-boun...@openvswitch.org> wrote: -
To: Mickey Spiegel <mickeys@gmail.com>
From: Russell Bryant
Sent by: "dev"
Date: 07/29/2016 10:02AM
Cc: ovs dev <dev@openvswitch.org>
Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] ovn: Add second ACL stage
On
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Mickey Spiegel
wrote:
>
> This patch adds a second logical switch ingress ACL stage, and
> correspondingly a second logical switch egress ACL stage. This
> allows for more than one ACL-based feature to be applied in the
> ingress and
From: Mickey Spiegel
This patch adds a second logical switch ingress ACL stage, and
correspondingly a second logical switch egress ACL stage. This
allows for more than one ACL-based feature to be applied in the
ingress and egress logical switch pipelines. The features
20 matches
Mail list logo