On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:19:58AM +0300, Vladimir Medvedkin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Matthew, I think ipv6 lpm code need less changes
> struct rte_lpm6_tbl_entry {
> uint32_t next_hop: 21; /**< Next hop / next table to be
> checked. */
> uint32_t depth :8; /**< Rule depth. */
>
> /* Flags. */
> uint32_t valid :1; /**< Validation flag. */
> uint32_t valid_group :1; /**< Group validation flag. */
> uint32_t ext_entry :1; /**< External entry. */
> };
> there already is 21 bit for next_hop (need chenge only for rte_lpm6_rule)
> In Stephen approach for next_hop given only 16 bits, this is enough for
> next hop index, but not enough for AS number that originate prefix.
>
> Regards,
> Vladimir
Vladimir,
One thing I was confused, you published the changes to rte_lpm_tbl24_entry but
you didn't say what you did to change rte_lpm_tbl8_entry, as that one only had
an 8-bit next_hop as well. I wanted to be sure I didn't change it wrong and
break something.
Hopefully Stephen can make his bug fixes available so I could add all of this
together and try to make a patchset for dpdk-next to test it all out. Would be
a huge win compared to all the crappy LPM code I found on the Internet.
Matthew.
