Hi,
Thank you all for your help . I've learned so much in your discussion . There
is some questions to ask for advice:
About the 3th advice's solution , Can you commit this part, or tell us the
method to handle it?
The patch 10216 is the solution of 'gtpu geneve vxlan vxlan-gre' . When we
cr
Hi Kingwei,
The instructions are here:
https://wiki.fd.io/view/VPP/Pulling,_Building,_Running,_Hacking_and_Pushing_VPP_Code#Pushing
you can also file a bug report here:
https://jira.fd.io
but we don’t insist on bug reports when making changes to code on the master
branch.
Regards,
Neale
Get it. Will look into it. It will take a few days…
I’ll ask someone in the team to commit the code, then ask for your review.
From: Neale Ranns (nranns) [mailto:nra...@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 4:30 PM
To: Kingwel Xie ; Damjan Marion (damarion)
Cc: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
Subject:
Hi Xue,
I’m afraid it will take a few days to commit the code.
For now I copied the key changes for your reference. It should work.
Regards,
Kingwel
/* Search free lists for object with given size and alignment. */
static uword
mheap_get_search_free_list (void *v,
Hi Kingwel,
Thank you very much for your share of the solution of 'cache line alignment'.
I saw you configured 2M gtpu tunnel in 200s . When I merge the patch 10216 ,
configure 100K gtpu tunnel cost 7 mins. How do your configure rate reach so
fast?
Thanks,
Xyxue
From: Kingwel Xie
Date:
Hi Xue,
As I said, there are something else you have to do.
1. Better to use socket based API. Otherwise, you might suffer the 10ms
sleep time of linux_epoll_input. Or please hard code the sleep time to
100~200us in vl_api_clnt_process:430 vlib_process_wait_for_event_or_clock.
Don’t know i
Hello Ed,
I rewrite the script to use apt-get/yum instead, but I have one concern if this
is in compliance with you POC system. Can you please check?
I tested locally and looks like it is ok. But need to properly review.
[1] https://gerrit.fd.io/r/#/c/11928/
Thank you.
Peter Mikus
Engineer – S
Hi Kingwei,
[nr] if you skip this then the tunnels are not part of the FIB graph and hence
any updates in the forwarding to the tunnel’s destination will go unnoticed and
hence you potentially black hole the tunnel traffic indefinitely (since the
tunnel is not re-stacked). It is a linked lis
On Apr 19, 2018, at 6:59 AM, Peter Mikus -X (pmikus - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at
Cisco) mailto:pmi...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hello Ed,
I rewrite the script to use apt-get/yum instead, but I have one concern if this
is in compliance with you POC system. Can you please check?
Dont see anything here
Dear all,
Nitin suggested to move our current meeting time (California)
Wednesday
6-7am AArch64 meeting
8-9am AArch64 meeting overflow
To
Friday
7:30-9:30am AArch64 meeting
Agree?
Thank you,
Tina
On Apr 18, 2018, at 10:08 AM, Saxena, Nitin
mailto:nitin.sax...@cavium.com>> wrote:
Hi Tina,
I
A few observations:
1) Meeting Fri means that any issues uncovered in the meeting will be
deferred to the following week
2) I generally can't make that time slot (not that my ability to attend
should be the deciding factor).
Ed
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:05 PM Tina Tsou wrote:
> Dear all,
>
Dear Ed,
What do we need to do to pass CI?
Make build
Make test?
Also including
Make verify?
Thank you,
Tina
On Apr 19, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Ed Kern mailto:e...@cisco.com>>
wrote:
On Apr 19, 2018, at 6:59 AM, Peter Mikus -X (pmikus - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at
Cisco) mailto:pmi...@cisco.com>>
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Tina Tsou wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Nitin suggested to move our current meeting time (California)
> Wednesday
> 6-7am AArch64 meeting
> 8-9am AArch64 meeting overflow
>
> To
> Friday
> 7:30-9:30am AArch64 meeting
>
> Agree?
This works better for Prasun and I.
Thank
On Sun, 15 Apr 2018 21:24:52 +0200
Damjan Marion wrote:
> Dear A,
>
> Actually VPP is small application which consumes different libraries
> like vppinfra, vlib and vnet. So it is possible to write another one
> which uses same libs and such thing was already done in the past.
>
> I.e. for comp
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Carlito Nueno
> Date: April 19, 2018 at 9:03:51 AM HST
> To: dbar...@cisco.com
> Subject: VLAN to VLAN
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> How can I enable VLAN to VLAN communication? I want to have devices on
> one VLAN talk to devices on another VLAN, if possible constrain the
>
hi Carlito,
you can configure subinterfaces with tags and assign the ip addresses so the
VPP does routing and then either use vnet ACLs or acl plugin to restrict the
traffic.
—a
> On 19 Apr 2018, at 21:07, Dave Barach wrote:
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Carlito Nueno
>> Date: A
My current VLAN config:
loopback create
set int l2 bridge loop1 2 bvi
set int ip address loop1 192.168.2.1/24
set int state loop1 up
create sub GigabitEthernet0/14/0 2
set int l2 bridge GigabitEthernet0/14/0.2 2
set int l2 tag-rewrite GigabitEthernet0/14/0.2 pop 1
set int state GigabitEthernet0/1
Hi folks,
After having developed a new plugin, I'm now implementing its API in order to
use it from a GUI.
Is there an official documentation of the API grammar (other than inside
vppapigen) ? By looking at the code, I already found that it's possible to
include a structure in a request/respon
The config looks correct and should work, assuming the following:
1. The devices connected to GigabitEthernet0/14/0.2 have IP addresses in the
192.168.2.1/24 subnet with default gateway set to that of the BVI IP address of
192.168.2.1.
2. The devices connected to GigabitEthernet0/14/0.3 have IP a
One more comment - unless there are more VLAN 1 and VLAN 2 sub-interfaces you
need to put into BDs 1 and 2, then you may just configure IP addresses on the
sub-interfaces to route directly, as suggested by Andrew. It would be a lot
more efficient than going through two BDs and route via BVIs. -
Hi Neale,
Probably I didn’t make it clear enough, sorry for that. I just re-produced the
case and captured the back traces for your reference.
There are actually two cases:
First, creating many tunnels with different tunnel endpoints. In this case,
fib_table_entry_special_add would create many
Thanks John.
Routing between VLANs is working. But I can't get the ACLs quite
right. I am trying to block all communication between device A
(192.168.3.16) on VLAN 3 and device B (192.168.2.181) on VLAN 2.
vat# acl_add_replace ipv4 deny src 192.168.3.16/32 dst 192.168.2.181/32
vat# acl_dump
vl_ap
Hi Carlito,
What does the packet trace (as per
https://wiki.fd.io/view/VPP/How_To_Use_The_Packet_Generator_and_Packet_Tracer)
look like and which version of VPP are you running ?
--a
> On 20 Apr 2018, at 05:00, Carlito Nueno wrote:
>
> Thanks John.
>
> Routing between VLANs is working. But
23 matches
Mail list logo
