Hi Kam, Flow director can filter by src/dst prefix, but the src/dst prefix length is global for all rules. So, if you decide to specify /16 dst network, all rules will have /16 prefix length for dst address.
Regards, Vladimir 2015-08-05 17:53 GMT+03:00 Kamraan Nasim <knasim at sidebandnetworks.com>: > Hi Vladimir, > > Thank you for the link. Seems to simply be an abstraction over the > existing filters so it is safe for me to upgrade to v2.0 :) > > Since we are on the subject, are you aware of any filters on 82599 or > Fortville that may provide subnet filtering(I can specify something like > 192.168.0.0/16 instead of host addresses)? What about flow director > filters? > > > --Kam > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Vladimir Medvedkin <medvedkinv at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Kam, >> >> 1) The reason is discussed in >> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-September/005179.html >> 2) No, it's still not supported (on current NICs). At the moment ntuple >> is supported only by igb and ixgbe. If you look at >> drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c you can see ntuple_filter_to_5tuple >> function which translate rte_eth_ntuple_filter to ixgbe_5tuple_filter_info, >> so mask can be either UINT32_MAX or 0. It's hardware limitation (see 82599 >> datasheet 7.1.2.5 L3/L4 5-tuple Filters). >> >> Regards, >> Vladimir >> >> 2015-08-04 23:44 GMT+03:00 Kamraan Nasim <knasim at sidebandnetworks.com>: >> >>> Hi DPDK community, >>> >>> I've been using DPDK v1.7 and v1.8 for the past year. On updating to >>> v2.0.0, I see that *rte_5tuple_filter* has been deprecated as well as >>> the >>> associated install/remove call,* rte_eth_dev_add_5tuple_filter()* >>> >>> I now see that rte_eth_ntuple_filter has been added in place. >>> >>> 1) Is there a specific reason for removing backward compatibility? As in >>> is >>> there a known issue with rte_5tuple_filter infra that was discovered in >>> v2.0? >>> >>> >>> 2) One limitation of rte_5tuple_filter was that it could not be used to >>> filter /24 or /16 ip addresses(subnet filtering). I now see that the >>> src_ip_mask and dst_ip_mask is 32 bits and a separate >>> RTE_NTUPLE_FLAGS_SRC_IP >>> < >>> http://dpdk.org/doc/api/rte__eth__ctrl_8h.html#aff1204ca0b33628610956f840dd9b206 >>> > >>> has been introduced. Does this imply that we NOW support subnet >>> filtering(use mask for wildcard masking)? >>> >>> >>> Any help or pointers on the subject will be greatly appreciated!!! >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Kam >>> >> >> >
