Thanks Numan,
I’ll wait for your comments on #3.
Regards,
Vladislav Odintsov
> On 8 Dec 2021, at 19:13, Numan Siddique wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 11:43 AM Vladislav Odintsov wrote:
>>
>> Talking about patches 1 and 2 - they've got totally no negative impact,
>> it's an optimization
On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 11:43 AM Vladislav Odintsov wrote:
>
> Talking about patches 1 and 2 - they've got totally no negative impact,
> it's an optimization for HW VTEP scenario - I'd like them to be included
> as a part of 21.12.
>
> For patch #3 there is absolutely no affect for users who use
Talking about patches 1 and 2 - they've got totally no negative impact,
it's an optimization for HW VTEP scenario - I'd like them to be included
as a part of 21.12.
For patch #3 there is absolutely no affect for users who use either only
stateless ACLs or only stateful.
For users, who do
On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 3:58 AM Vladislav Odintsov wrote:
>
> On 01.12.2021 15:56, Vladislav Odintsov wrote:
> > Currently if user has a stateless and statetul ACLs (allow-stateless and
> > allow-related) in one port group or in one logical switch simultaneously,
> > the stateless rules whould
On 01.12.2021 15:56, Vladislav Odintsov wrote:
Currently if user has a stateless and statetul ACLs (allow-stateless and
allow-related) in one port group or in one logical switch simultaneously,
the stateless rules whould take precedence.
This patch series adds support for mixing all the ACLs
Currently if user has a stateless and statetul ACLs (allow-stateless and
allow-related) in one port group or in one logical switch simultaneously,
the stateless rules whould take precedence.
This patch series adds support for mixing all the ACLs types with the
respect to their priority.
This
