Yes, we could let ovs using 82599 VF to do rx/tx. I don't know what's your l2 bridge, but since ovs could work I think your bridge also could work. But I only tested with one VF.
Make sure below two patches (bifurcate driver) are included in your kernel: _https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/476511/_ _https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/476516/_ Mostly, if your kernel version in 4.2 or newer, it should be included. After you create VF, before you passthrough the VF to guest: (vf +1) << 32 + queue-index, 1. where vf is the VF index starting from 0 2. the queue-index is 0 if multi-queue support is not turned on, and this value is [0,1] if multiple-queue is turned on echo 1 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/0000\:05\:00.0/sriov_numvfs ifconfig $(PF_INTF) up ifconfig $(VF0_INFT) up ip link set $(PF_INTF) promisc on ethtool -K $(PF_INTF) ntuple on ethtool -N $(PF_INTF) flow-type udp4 dst-port 4789 action 0x100000000 (VF0 queue 0) Here we using flow director to all let packets according to the rules to the VF, But I don't know if it could let the packets to other VFs at the same time. Thanks, Michael On 3/17/2016 2:43 PM, bharath paulraj wrote: > Hi Lu, Helin, Greg, > > Many thanks for your response, which is really quick. Now, If I want > to implement L2 bridging with Intel virtualization technologies, using > 82599 controller, then Michael is my only hope, as getting the new > kernel versions and upstream support will take considerable amount of > time. > > Michael, Could you please share your experience on L2 bridging > using Intel virtualization technologies. > > Thanks, > Bharath > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Rose, Gregory V > <gregory.v.rose at intel.com <mailto:gregory.v.rose at intel.com>> wrote: > > Intel has not supported promiscuous mode for virtual functions due > to the security concerns mentioned below. > > There will be upstream support in an upcoming Linux kernel for > setting virtual functions as "trusted" and when that is available > then Intel will allow virtual functions to enter unicast > promiscuous mode on those Ethernet controllers that support > promiscuous mode for virtual functions in the HW/FW. Be aware > that not all Intel Ethernet controllers have support for unicast > promiscuous mode for virtual functions. The only currently > released product that does is the X710/XL710. > > The key take away is that unicast promiscuous mode for X710/XL710 > virtual functions requires Linux kernel support, iproute2 package > support and driver support. Only when all three of these are in > place will the feature work. > > Thanks, > > - Greg > > -----Original Message----- > From: Zhang, Helin > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 9:04 AM > To: bharath paulraj <bharathpaul at gmail.com > <mailto:bharathpaul at gmail.com>>; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com > <mailto:wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>>; Rowden, Aaron F > <aaron.f.rowden at intel.com <mailto:aaron.f.rowden at intel.com>>; > Rose, Gregory V <gregory.v.rose at intel.com > <mailto:gregory.v.rose at intel.com>> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org <mailto:dev at dpdk.org>; Qiu, Michael > <michael.qiu at intel.com <mailto:michael.qiu at intel.com>>; Jayakumar, > Muthurajan <muthurajan.jayakumar at intel.com > <mailto:muthurajan.jayakumar at intel.com>> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] Reg: promiscuous mode on VF > > Hi Bharath > > For your question of "why intel does not support unicast > promiscuos mode?", I'd ask Aaron or Greg to give answers. > Thank you very much! > > Regards, > Helin > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org > <mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org>] On Behalf Of bharath paulraj > > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 11:29 PM > > To: Lu, Wenzhuo > > Cc: dev at dpdk.org <mailto:dev at dpdk.org> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Reg: promiscuous mode on VF > > > > Hi Lu, > > > > Many thanks for your response. Again I have few more queries. > > If VF unicast promiscuous mode is not supported then can't we > > implement a Layer 2 bridging functionality using intel > virtualization > > technologies? Or Is there any other way, say tweeking some hardware > > registers or drivers, which may help us in implementing Layer 2 > bridging. > > Also I would like to know, why intel does not support unicast > promiscuos mode? > > It could have been optional register settings and user should > have had > > a previleage to set or unset it. Besides, security reasons, is there > > any other big reason why Intel does not support this? > > > > Thanks, > > Bharath Paulraj > > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 6:15 AM, Lu, Wenzhuo > <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com <mailto:wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Bharath, > > > > > > > 2) Is the above supported for 82599 controller? If it is > > > > supported > > > in the NIC, > > > > please provide the steps to enable. > > > Talking about 82599, VF unicast promiscuous mode is not supported. > > > Only broadcast and multicast can be supported. > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Bharath Paulraj > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Bharath > > > > > -- > Regards, > Bharath
