Re: [vpp-dev] Interface up Stuck for Mellanox CX-4 VF with VPP master and DPDK 18.05 on aarch64

2018-07-03 Thread Damjan Marion via Lists.Fd.Io
Capturing backtrace for each thread might be good start. Thanks! -- Damjan > On 3 Jul 2018, at 20:03, Sirshak Das wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am facing an issue with my VPP installation on Qualcomm Centriq with > Mellanox MT27700 [CX-4] card. The MOFED versions I have is 4.3-3.0.2.1 > and

[vpp-dev] Interface up Stuck for Mellanox CX-4 VF with VPP master and DPDK 18.05 on aarch64

2018-07-03 Thread Sirshak Das
Hi all, I am facing an issue with my VPP installation on Qualcomm Centriq with Mellanox MT27700 [CX-4] card. The MOFED versions I have is 4.3-3.0.2.1 and its built from source. Kernel: 4.15.0-24-generic OS: 18.04 LTS. When I use this command: vpp# set interface state

Re: [vpp-dev] Does VPP support source base route?

2018-07-03 Thread Neale Ranns via Lists.Fd.Io
Hi David, Yes and no. No, because there is [today] no way to change *the* IP lookup to use the packet’s source address. Yes, because VPP does support a source based lookup, but this would happen after *the* destination based lookup. So, the trick would be to configure a second IP table with

[vpp-dev] about iOAM configuration

2018-07-03 Thread HADI SHAIKHZAKER
Hi vpp-dev team, I am trying to check the iOAM feature of VPP. Do you have any working config sample for this? I have checked the following url's and the configuration mentioned, was sometimes rejected by the CLI or had no effect. [URL1] https://docs.fd.io/vpp/18.04/ioam_plugin_doc.html

[vpp-dev] Does VPP support source base route?

2018-07-03 Thread david zhang
Hi, My application situation needs to route packet based on source ip address, but can it be implemented through some simple commands in VPP? such as "ip route". I have try to read the related source code and find it really difficult. I really hope I can get some advice. Thanks in advance!

Re: [vpp-dev] Is VPP IPSec implementation thread safe?

2018-07-03 Thread Damjan Marion via Lists.Fd.Io
> On 3 Jul 2018, at 02:36, Kingwel Xie wrote: > > Hi Damjan, > > Thanks for the heads-up. Never come to that. I’m still thinking it is > acceptable if we are doing IPSec. Buffer copying is a significant overhead. What i wanted to say by copying is writing encrypted data into new buffer