It is a good idea to capture this information in a table. The following
table should be accurate:
Pre-megaflow:
type mask matches
---------------- ---------------- ---------------------------
eth_type(0x600+) <none> specified Ethertype II, or valid 802.3
SNAP
packet with valid
eth_type.
Ethertype.
<none> <none> any non-Ethernet II frame, except
valid 802.3 SNAP
packet with valid
eth_type.
Post-megaflow:
type mask matches
---------------- ---------------- ---------------------------
eth_type(0x600+) eth_type(0xffff) specified Ethertype II
Ethertype, or valid 802.3 SNAP packet with valid eth_type.
eth_type(0x600+) eth_type(0) any Ethertype II frame or
non-Ethernet II frame.
<none> eth_type(0xffff) any non-Ethernet II frame,
except valid 802.3 SNAP packet with valid eth_type.
--andy
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
> I don't really care about the formatting, only about the kernel ABI.
>
> Pre-megaflows, the ABI was:
>
> type mask matches
> ---------------- ---------------- ---------------------------
> eth_type(0x600+) <none> specified Ethertype II
> Ethertype.
> <none> <none> any non-Ethernet II frame
>
> Now, my understanding is that the above continue to be valid, with the
> same meanings, but the following are also supported:
>
> type mask matches
> ---------------- ---------------- ---------------------------
> eth_type(0x600+) eth_type(0xffff) specified Ethertype II
> Ethertype.
> eth_type(0x600+) eth_type(0) any Ethertype II frame
> <none> eth_type(0xffff) any non-Ethernet II frame
>
> Is that right?
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:40:28AM -0700, Andy Zhou wrote:
> > We will continue to allow missing eth_type in the netlink attribute to
> > imply Ethernet II type. 802.3 frames requires a specific eth_type
> > attribute.
>
> I don't understand the first sentence. We have never interpreted a
> missing eth_type as implying an Ethernet II frame; the opposite, in
> fact: a missing eth_type matches only non-Ethernet II frames.
>
> > With Mega flows, we further require a missing eth_type in the key
> attribute
> > to have a exact match (oxffff) in the eth_type of the mask attribute (if
> > present).
>
> That's really weird. What's the rationale?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ben.
>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
