Does the efp-filter work base on the second tag?? As far as I experiment, I realized that each subinterface receives packets with tags equal to their subinterface number, e.g. GigabitEthernet1/0/0.200 will receives packets with inner tags(802.1q) of 200, which is customer' vlan tag. I think that I should not consider customer's 802.1q tag in PE.
> On Monday, May 28, 2018, John Lo (loj) <l...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> What you observed is the expected behavior. Adding such a check will add >> an overhead on l2-output with VTR configured and affect the packet >> forwarding efficiency. I still don’t understand the purpose of pushing >> dot1ad tag on packet at customer interface input in your VPLS test setup. >> It just make L2 forwarding slower because of the VLAN tag push/pop overhead >> on each packet and does not serve any purpose, AFAIK. -John >> >> >> >> *From:* Mehran Memarnejad <memarnejad...@gmail.com> >> *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2018 8:56 AM >> *To:* John Lo (loj) <l...@cisco.com>; vpp-dev@lists.fd.io >> *Subject:* Re: dot1ad tag >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> The patch makes it work perfectly. Now the Second tag (SPtag) is removed. >> >> But I think there is another bug here. >> >> *First scenario:* >> >> PE1 : set interface l2 tag-rewrite GigabitEthernet5/0/0 push >> dot1ad 200 >> >> PE2 : set interface l2 tag-rewrite GigabitEthernet4/0/1 push >> dot1ad* 200* >> >> Everything works perfect. the first PE adds the 802.1ad tag of 200 and >> the second PE removes it. >> >> *Second scenario:* >> >> PE1 : set interface l2 tag-rewrite GigabitEthernet5/0/0 push >> dot1ad 200 >> >> PE2 : set interface l2 tag-rewrite GigabitEthernet4/0/1 push >> dot1ad* 120* >> >> I expect the second PE does not pass the packet, since its tag(120) is >> different from the received tag(200), (Or in other words they are in >> different service provider's vlan. Am I right?) >> >> But unfortunately, the second PE passes it. >> >> I think that the source code is just considering the number of tags, not >> the number of tags and their value. I think this is the bug. Am I right?? >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Mehran Memarnejad < >> memarnejad...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> The patch makes it work perfectly. Now the Second tag (SPtag) is removed. >> >> But I think there is another bug here. >> >> First scenario: >> >> PE1 : set interface l2 tag-rewrite GigabitEthernet5/0/0 push dot1ad 200 >> >> PE2 : set interface l2 tag-rewrite GigabitEthernet4/0/1 push dot1ad 200 >> >> >> >> On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 5:51 AM, John Lo (loj) <l...@cisco.com> wrote: >> >> I just submitted a patch. Can you give it a try if this resolve the >> problem? -John >> >> https://gerrit.fd.io/r/#/c/12750/ >> >> >> >> *From:* Mehran Memarnejad <memarnejad...@gmail.com> >> *Sent:* Friday, May 25, 2018 1:24 PM >> >> >> *To:* John Lo (loj) <l...@cisco.com>; vpp-dev@lists.fd.io >> *Subject:* Re: dot1ad tag >> >> >> >> Without tag-rewrite configuration, everything works well. But I want to >> activate QinQ feature, so I need to add service provider tag (sp-tag) by >> using dot1ad tag. >> >> >> >> Any more idea to solve the problem?? >> >> On Friday, May 25, 2018, John Lo (loj) <l...@cisco.com> wrote: >> >> The tag-rewrite (VTR) configuration looks right. I looked at the >> l2_vtr_process() function in l2_vtr.h to check how it checks for errors. >> This is the error drop path: >> >> >> >> /* if not enough tags to pop then drop packet */ >> >> if (PREDICT_FALSE ((vnet_buffer (b0)->l2.l2_len - 12) < >> config->pop_bytes)) >> >> { >> >> return 1; >> >> } >> >> >> >> My guess is that interface-rx-dpo-l2 node did not setup l2_len field in >> the vnet buffer properly before passing the packet to l2-input node. That’s >> why tag-rewrite operation on l2-output node does not function properly. >> If you remove the tag rewrite config from these GigabitEthernet5/0/0 >> customer ports on both PEs, I suppose it should start to work. Any reason >> you want to have the additional dot1ad tag on the packets for forwarding in >> the BD and MPLS tunnel? >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> John >> >> >> >> *From:* Mehran Memarnejad <memarnejad...@gmail.com> >> *Sent:* Friday, May 25, 2018 4:40 AM >> *To:* John Lo (loj) <l...@cisco.com>; vpp-dev@lists.fd.io >> *Subject:* Re: dot1ad tag >> >> >> >> Sw_if_index 6 is the mpls tunnel0 and sw_if_index 3 is the >> GigabitEthernet5/0/0 on which I have set interface tag-rewrite push dot1ad >> 12 .... (both of them are attached to bridge1) >> >> >> >> Gigabitethernet5/0/0 is the PE's interface toward customer, meaning that >> I guess if it does not drop the packet, VPLS will work. >> >> >> >> The packet is sent to the interface attached to bridge >> (gigabitethernet5/0/0) by mupls tunnel0. >> >> But then the packet drops. >> >> >> >> On Friday, May 25, 2018, John Lo (loj) <l...@cisco.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Mehran, >> >> >> >> The packet trace shows drop is cause by l2-output node when the packet is >> sent on the interface with sw_if_index 3 where the output tag-rewrite >> operation is not expecting packet with a dot1ad tag of 12. What is the >> interface with sw_if_index of 3 on that PE? Is this the same interface >> where you have tag-rewrite of “push dot1ad 12” applied? >> >> >> >> Can you provide the output of “show bridge 1 detail” (assuming bridge >> domain ID of 1 is used for bd_index 1, otherwise, substitute with the ID >> used) on that PE, please? The output will show all interfaces in the >> bridge domain with sw_if_index and tag-rewrite operation configured on each >> interface. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> John >> >> >> >> *From:* vpp-dev@lists.fd.io <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> *On Behalf Of *Mehran >> Memarnejad >> *Sent:* Thursday, May 24, 2018 8:12 AM >> *To:* vpp-dev@lists.fd.io >> *Subject:* [vpp-dev] dot1ad tag >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I have configured VPLS in VPP somehow like this link >> <https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/9112?p=,,,20,0,0,0::Created,,vpls,20,2,0,18122864> >> . >> >> >> >> In addition to the above configurations, I want to add a second vlan tag >> i.e. 802.1ad (QinQ). >> >> To achieve this, I entered following command in both PEs: >> >> *"Set interface l2 tag-rewrite GigabitEthernet5/0/0 push >> dot1ad 12"* >> >> >> >> Tracking what's going on, I found that the first PE adds the QinQ tag >> (12), but the second PE will not remove this tag and afterward it goes to >> error node with this message: >> >> *"l2-output: L2 output tag rewrite drops"* >> >> >> >> Here is what *show trace *shows in the second PE: >> >> >> >> Packet 1 >> >> 00:31:10:348251: dpdk-input >> TenGigabitEthernet4/0/0 rx queue 0 >> buffer 0x21b6f: current data 14, length 114, free-list 0, clone-count >> 0, totlen-nifb 0, trace 0x0 >> ext-hdr-valid >> l4-cksum-computed l4-cksum-correct l2-hdr-offset 0 >> l3-hdr-offset 14 >> PKT MBUF: port 1, nb_segs 1, pkt_len 128 >> buf_len 2176, data_len 128, ol_flags 0x180, data_off 128, phys_addr >> 0x4ce6dc40 >> packet_type 0x1 l2_len 0 l3_len 0 outer_l2_len 0 outer_l3_len 0 >> rss 0x0 fdir.hi 0x0 fdir.lo 0x0 >> Packet Offload Flags >> PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_GOOD (0x0080) IP cksum of RX pkt. is valid >> PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_GOOD (0x0100) L4 cksum of RX pkt. is valid >> Packet Types >> RTE_PTYPE_L2_ETHER (0x0001) Ethernet packet >> >> >> >> MPLS: 00:25:90:97:fa:10 -> a0:36:9f:23:aa:78 >> label 60 exp 0, s 0, ttl 63 >> 00:31:10:348260: mpls-input >> MPLS: next mpls-lookup[1] label 60 ttl 63 exp 0 >> 00:31:10:348265: mpls-lookup >> MPLS: next [7], lookup fib index 0, LB index 23 hash 0 label 60 eos 0 >> 00:31:10:348268: lookup-mpls-dst >> fib-index:0 hdr:[33:64:0:eos] load-balance:21 >> 00:31:10:348270: interface-rx-dpo-l2 >> sw_if_index:6 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *00:31:10:348272: l2-input l2-input: sw_if_index 6 dst >> 30:85:a9:f2:23:12 src 3c:07:71:5f:2d:f5 00:31:10:348275: l2-learn >> l2-learn: sw_if_index 6 dst 30:85:a9:f2:23:12 src 3c:07:71:5f:2d:f5 >> bd_index 1 00:31:10:348277: l2-fwd l2-fwd: sw_if_index 6 dst >> 30:85:a9:f2:23:12 src 3c:07:71:5f:2d:f5 bd_index 1* >> >> >> >> >> *00:31:10:348280: l2-output l2-output: sw_if_index 3 dst >> 30:85:a9:f2:23:12 src 3c:07:71:5f:2d:f5 data 88 a8 00 0c 81 00 00 06 08 00 >> 45 00* >> >> >> >> >> *00:31:10:348282: error-drop l2-output: L2 output tag rewrite drops* >> >> >> >> Colors: Packet reception , MPLS tag handling, L2 handling, Error >> >> >> >> >> >> If you notice red underlined trace, 802.1ad tag 12 (in hex 0C) and 802.1q >> tag 6 (in hex 06) has been added to packet. >> >> >> >> >> >> I inspected the code in /src/vnet/l2/l2_vtr.h * l2_vtr_process()* >> function and /src/vnet/l2/l2_input.h *vnet_update_l2_len()* >> function, but I couldn't find any problem. >> >> >> >> >> >> MY QUESTION: Is it a bug in code that the 802.1ad tag is not removed?? Or >> should I have entered more commands? >> >> >> >> Thanks in advance >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
