> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Rybchenko <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 4:28 PM > To: Ori Kam <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; Adrien Mazarguil > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Dekel Peled <[email protected]>; Thomas Monjalon > <[email protected]>; Nélio Laranjeiro <[email protected]>; > Yongseok Koh <[email protected]>; Shahaf Shuler > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/3] ethdev: add raw encapsulation action > > On 10/22/18 4:19 PM, Ori Kam wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Andrew Rybchenko <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 4:06 PM > >> To: Ori Kam <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > >> [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; > >> [email protected]; Adrien Mazarguil > >> <[email protected]> > >> Cc: [email protected]; Dekel Peled <[email protected]>; Thomas Monjalon > >> <[email protected]>; Nélio Laranjeiro <[email protected]>; > >> Yongseok Koh <[email protected]>; Shahaf Shuler > >> <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/3] ethdev: add raw encapsulation action > >> > >> On 10/17/18 11:43 AM, Ori Kam wrote: > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Andrew Rybchenko <[email protected]> > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 10:56 AM > >>>> To: Ori Kam <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > >>>> [email protected]; [email protected]; > >> [email protected]; > >>>> [email protected]; Adrien Mazarguil > >>>> <[email protected]> > >>>> Cc: [email protected]; Dekel Peled <[email protected]>; Thomas > Monjalon > >>>> <[email protected]>; Nélio Laranjeiro > <[email protected]>; > >>>> Yongseok Koh <[email protected]>; Shahaf Shuler > >>>> <[email protected]> > >>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/3] ethdev: add raw encapsulation > action > >>>> > >>>> On 10/17/18 12:41 AM, Ori Kam wrote: > >>>> Currenlty the encap/decap actions only support encapsulation > >>>> of VXLAN and NVGRE L2 packets (L2 encapsulation is where > >>>> the inner packet has a valid Ethernet header, while L3 encapsulation > >>>> is where the inner packet doesn't have the Ethernet header). > >>>> In addtion the parameter to to the encap action is a list of rte items, > >>>> this results in 2 extra translation, between the application to the > >>>> actioni and from the action to the NIC. This results in negetive impact > >>>> on the insertion performance. > >>>> > >>>> Looking forward there are going to be a need to support many more > tunnel > >>>> encapsulations. For example MPLSoGRE, MPLSoUDP. > >>>> Adding the new encapsulation will result in duplication of code. > >>>> For example the code for handling NVGRE and VXLAN are exactly the > same, > >>>> and each new tunnel will have the same exact structure. > >>>> > >>>> This patch introduce a raw encapsulation that can support L2 tunnel types > >>>> and L3 tunnel types. In addtion the new > >>>> encapsulations commands are using raw buffer inorder to save the > >>>> converstion time, both for the application and the PMD. > >>>> > >>>> In order to encapsulate L3 tunnel type there is a need to use both > >>>> actions in the same rule: The decap to remove the L2 of the original > >>>> packet, and then encap command to encapsulate the packet with the > >>>> tunnel. > >>>> For decap L3 there is also a need to use both commands in the same flow > >>>> first the decap command to remove the outer tunnel header and then > encap > >>>> to add the L2 header. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Ori Kam mailto:[email protected] > >> [...] > >> > >>>> + > >>>> +This action modifies the payload of matched flows. The data supplied > must > >>>> +be a valid header, either holding layer 2 data in case of removing > >>>> layer 2 > >>>> +before incapsulation of layer 3 tunnel (for example MPLSoGRE) or > >> complete > >>>> +tunnel definition starting from layer 2 and moving to the tunel item > itself. > >>>> +When applied to the original packet the resulting packet must be a > >>>> +valid packet. > >>>> + > >>>> +.. _table_rte_flow_action_raw_decap: > >>>> + > >>>> +.. table:: RAW_DECAP > >>>> + > >>>> + +----------------+----------------------------------------+ > >>>> + | Field | Value | > >>>> + > +================+========================================+ > >>>> + | ``data`` | Decapsulation data | > >>>> > >>>> Sorry, I've missed the point why it is here. Is it used for matching? > >>>> Why is the size insufficient? > >>>> > >>> No it is not used for matching this is only for the encapsulation data. > >>> The data is for PMD that needs to validate that they can decapsulate > >>> The packet, and on some PMD there might need the specify which headers > >>> to remove and not just number of bytes. > >> Sorry, but I still don't understand. How should PMD or HW use it? > >> I guess the main problem here is that it is a generic action. > >> If it is VXLAN_DECAP, it would not be a problem and neither > >> size nor data would be required. > >> > > The data is buffer of the encap/decap headers, so the PMD can parse the this > data > > and check the validity and if the HW supports it. > > Some NICs will not use this others can check if the tunnel request is valid. > > For example let's assume that some tunnel encapsulation is supported on > some FW version > > and not supported in other version so the PMD can check the encapsulation > data to see > > what is the requested tunnel type and the FW capabilities to return success > > or > fail. > > OK, I see. Could you improve the action description to make it clear. > Right now the description says nothing about it. >
Sure I will update it. Ori
