On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 12:30 PM Alexander Kozyrev <akozy...@nvidia.com> wrote: > > >>And we definitely need RTE_PTYPE_INNER_L4_ESP for ESP over UDP support. > >Isn't this already taken care when mbuf->packet_type = > >(RTE_PTYPE_L4_UDP | RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_ESP) ? > > This is ambigous. And both UDP and ESP are L4 headers, > which can lead to the undefined behavior when we specify both of them. > They are mutually exclusive in our hardware, for example. > That is why we have RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_MPLS_IN_GRE and > RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_MPLS_IN_UDP for MPLS. > We could go and indroduce RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_ESP_IN_UDP > to resolve the ambiguity, or have RTE_PTYPE_INNER_L4_ESP. > I choose the second variant to have a generic way for > ESP packets over any type of encapsulation. The choice sounds reasonable to me.
>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
