Hi Jon, You are right on both counts. It is the combination of dot1q/ad-any and exact-match that we should reject. It is also correct the check should be at lower level to reject the combination for both API and CLI.
Regards, John From: Jon Loeliger <j...@netgate.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 11:48 AM To: John Lo (loj) <l...@cisco.com> Cc: Raj <rajlistu...@gmail.com>; vpp-dev <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] QinQ and dot1ad any On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 8:13 AM John Lo (loj) via Lists.Fd.Io<http://Lists.Fd.Io> <loj=cisco....@lists.fd.io<mailto:cisco....@lists.fd.io>> wrote: Thus, sub-interface with "inner-dot1q any" is not an exact match sub-interface by definition since no match is present on inner tag. I suppose the CLI: >> create sub-interfaces GigabitEthernet3/0/3 50 dot1ad 50 inner-dot1q any >> exact-match should have been rejected as exact match cannot be supported on the sub-interface. This is something we should ideally fix in the CLI to avoid any confusion with the meaning of exact match. Regards, John Hi John, I have two questions here. First, a clarification on what combinations of options should be rejected. Are you saying that the pair "inner-dot1q any" should be rejected, or are you saying the trio "inner-do1q any exact match" should be rejected. I suspect you are meaning the latter. Second, while rejecting it in the CLI would be nice, that would still allow the configuration via the API, right? So it might be better to reject it one layer down so it is caught by both the CLI and the API. Thanks, jdl
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#14924): https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/14924 Mute This Topic: https://lists.fd.io/mt/68757125/21656 Group Owner: vpp-dev+ow...@lists.fd.io Unsubscribe: https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
