On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:29:55AM +0100, Sean Harte wrote:
> On 29 September 2017 at 09:54, Xing, Beilei <beilei.x...@intel.com> wrote:
<snip>
> >> > /**
> >> > + * RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_GTP.
> >> > + *
> >> > + * Matches a GTPv1 header.
> >> > + */
> >> > +struct rte_flow_item_gtp {
> >> > + /**
> >> > + * Version (3b), protocol type (1b), reserved (1b),
> >> > + * Extension header flag (1b),
> >> > + * Sequence number flag (1b),
> >> > + * N-PDU number flag (1b).
> >> > + */
> >> > + uint8_t v_pt_rsv_flags;
> >> > + uint8_t msg_type; /**< Message type. */
> >> > + rte_be16_t msg_len; /**< Message length. */
> >> > + rte_be32_t teid; /**< Tunnel endpoint identifier. */ };
> >>
> >> In future, you might add support for GTPv2 (which is used since LTE).
> >> Maybe this structure should have v1 in its name to avoid confusion?
> >
> > I considered it before. But I think we can modify it when we support GTPv2
> > in future, and keep concise 'GTP' currently:) since I have described it
> > matches v1 header.
> >
>
> You could rename v_pt_rsv_flags to version_flags to avoid some future
> code changes to support GTPv2. There's still the issue that not all
> GTPv2 messages have a TEID though.
Although they have the same size, the header of these two protocols
obviously differs. My suggestion would be to go with a separate GTPv2
pattern item using its own dedicated structure instead.
--
Adrien Mazarguil
6WIND
