>
>
>On 14 Jan 2022, at 10:38, lic121 wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14 Jan 2022, at 9:58, lic121 wrote:
>>>
>
>
> On 9 Jan 2022, at 14:44, lic121 wrote:
>
>> Currently, ipfix creation/delection don't trigger dpif backer
>> revalidation. This is not expected, as we need the revalid
On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 03:50:52PM -0500, Mike Pattrick wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 3:33 PM Flavio Leitner wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > Thanks for working on this issue.
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 10:45:35AM -0500, Mike Pattrick wrote:
> > > Formerly when userspace TSO was enabled
On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 3:33 PM Flavio Leitner wrote:
>
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> Thanks for working on this issue.
>
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 10:45:35AM -0500, Mike Pattrick wrote:
> > Formerly when userspace TSO was enabled but with a non-DKDK interface
> > without support IP checksum offloading, FTP NA
Hi Mike,
Thanks for working on this issue.
On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 10:45:35AM -0500, Mike Pattrick wrote:
> Formerly when userspace TSO was enabled but with a non-DKDK interface
> without support IP checksum offloading, FTP NAT connections would fail
> if the packet length changed. This can hap
On 1/14/22 18:11, Van Haaren, Harry wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Ilya Maximets
>> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 1:14 PM
>> To: Van Haaren, Harry ; Finn, Emma
>> ; d...@openvswitch.org; Amber, Kumar
>>
>> Cc: i.maxim...@ovn.org; Stokes, Ian ; Flavio Leitner
>> ; Kevin Traynor ;
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 7:37 AM Roi Dayan via dev
wrote:
>
> A datapath flow generated for traffic from vxlan port to another vxlan port
> looks like this:
>
> tunnel(tun_id=0x65,src=10.10.11.3,dst=10.10.11.2,ttl=0/0,tp_dst=4789,flags(+key)),...,in_port(vxlan_sys_4789),...,
>
> actions:set(tunnel
Thanks, Lorenzo.
Acked-by: Mark Michelson
On 1/13/22 19:12, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
Changes since v1:
- fix dhcpd issue on ubuntu env
- enable IPv6 PD testing by default in gh workload
Lorenzo Bianconi (3):
northd: fix IPv6-PD with northd IP rework
test: replace dibbler with dhcpd
Ad
At the moment ovs meters are reconfigured by ovn just when a
new a meter is allocated while updates for an already allocated meter are
ignored. This issue can be easily verified with the following reproducer:
$ovn-nbctl meter-add meter0 drop 10 pktps
$ovn-nbctl --log --meter=meter0 acl-add sw0 to-
Remove global state variable and move move inc-proc code in an isolated
strucuture. This is a preliminary patch to add the capability to run
multiple inc-proc engines.
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi
---
controller/ovn-controller.c | 65 ++-
lib/inc-proc-eng.c | 226 +++
Introduce pending_id map used to store meter_id allocated but not yet
inserted in the desired_table. This is a preliminary patch to add
metering IP engine.
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi
---
controller/ofctrl.c | 9 +
controller/ofctrl.h | 1 +
lib/extend-table.c | 82 +++
Changes since v1:
- add IP refactor to the series
- rebase on top of ovn master
Lorenzo Bianconi (3):
inc-proc-eng: move inc-proc code in an isolated strucuture
lib: extend-table: add pending_id map
controller: reconfigure ovs meters for ovn meters updates
controller/ofctrl.c | 82
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 8:38 PM Antonin Bas wrote:
>
> Setting the local address to 0.0.0.0 (v4 address) while setting the
> remote address to a v6 address results in an invalid configuration.
>
> See https://github.com/strongswan/strongswan/discussions/821
>
> Signed-off-by: Antonin Bas
Acked-b
> -Original Message-
> From: Ilya Maximets
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 1:14 PM
> To: Van Haaren, Harry ; Finn, Emma
> ; d...@openvswitch.org; Amber, Kumar
>
> Cc: i.maxim...@ovn.org; Stokes, Ian ; Flavio Leitner
> ; Kevin Traynor ; Mcnamara, John
>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/9] Ac
Mike Pattrick writes:
> Formerly when userspace TSO was enabled but with a non-DKDK interface
> without support IP checksum offloading, FTP NAT connections would fail
> if the packet length changed. This can happen if the packets length
> changes during L7 NAT translation, predominantly with FTP.
Formerly when userspace TSO was enabled but with a non-DKDK interface
without support IP checksum offloading, FTP NAT connections would fail
if the packet length changed. This can happen if the packets length
changes during L7 NAT translation, predominantly with FTP.
Now we correct the IP header c
The function currently looks like this:
lib/dpif-netdev.c:
static uint32_t
dpcls_subtable_lookup_reprobe(struct dpcls *cls)
{
struct pvector *pvec = &cls->subtables;
uint32_t subtables_changed = 0;
struct dpcls_subtable *subtable = NULL;
PVECTOR_FOR_EACH (subtable, pvec) {
On 13 Jan 2022, at 17:23, Adrian Moreno wrote:
> On 12/24/21 14:14, Eelco Chaudron wrote:
>> Other than ending comments with a dot and an extra newline, it looks fine.
>>
>> Acked-by: Eelco Chaudron
>>
>> On 22 Nov 2021, at 12:22, Adrian Moreno wrote:
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Adrian Moreno
>>> --
On 13 Jan 2022, at 12:33, Adrian Moreno wrote:
> On 12/23/21 14:08, Eelco Chaudron wrote:
>> Just some small comments below, and the request to fix up the comments.
>>
>
> Thanks.
>
>>
>>
>> Trying to understand why you have a special ODPFlowFactory class to return
>> an ODPFLow() object from a
On 12 Jan 2022, at 16:46, Adrian Moreno wrote:
> On 12/24/21 15:07, Eelco Chaudron wrote:
> +class OFPFlowFactory:
>>
>> See my comments on patch 8, where I do think we should get rid of this
>> class, and update the OFPFlow class to take this string at init.
>> Being more OOO it would look
On 14 Jan 2022, at 10:38, lic121 wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 14 Jan 2022, at 9:58, lic121 wrote:
>>
On 9 Jan 2022, at 14:44, lic121 wrote:
> Currently, ipfix creation/delection don't trigger dpif backer
> revalidation. This is not expected, as we need the revalidation
> to
On 12 Jan 2022, at 17:23, Harry van Haaren wrote:
> This commit fixes the minimum packet size for the vlan/ipv4/tcp
> traffic profile, which was previously incorrectly set.
>
> This commit also disallows any fragmented IPv4 packets from being
> matched in the optimized miniflow-extract, avoiding
>
>
>On 14 Jan 2022, at 9:58, lic121 wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9 Jan 2022, at 14:44, lic121 wrote:
>>>
Currently, ipfix creation/delection don't trigger dpif backer
revalidation. This is not expected, as we need the revalidation
to commit ipfix into xlate. So that xlate can generate ip
>
>
>On 9 Jan 2022, at 14:44, lic121 wrote:
>
>> If lldp didn't change, we are not supposed to trigger backer
>> revalidation.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: lic121
>> ---
>> ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c | 4 +++-
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c b/ofpro
On 14 Jan 2022, at 9:58, lic121 wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 9 Jan 2022, at 14:44, lic121 wrote:
>>
>>> Currently, ipfix creation/delection don't trigger dpif backer
>>> revalidation. This is not expected, as we need the revalidation
>>> to commit ipfix into xlate. So that xlate can generate ipfix
>>> act
On 9 Jan 2022, at 14:44, lic121 wrote:
> If lldp didn't change, we are not supposed to trigger backer
> revalidation.
>
> Signed-off-by: lic121
> ---
> ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c b/ofproto/ofproto-d
>
>
>On 9 Jan 2022, at 14:44, lic121 wrote:
>
>> Currently, ipfix creation/delection don't trigger dpif backer
>> revalidation. This is not expected, as we need the revalidation
>> to commit ipfix into xlate. So that xlate can generate ipfix
>> actions.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: lic121
>> ---
>> ofpro
On 9 Jan 2022, at 14:44, lic121 wrote:
> Currently, ipfix creation/delection don't trigger dpif backer
> revalidation. This is not expected, as we need the revalidation
> to commit ipfix into xlate. So that xlate can generate ipfix
> actions.
>
> Signed-off-by: lic121
> ---
> ofproto/ofproto-d
27 matches
Mail list logo
