OK, can we add that in the tree somewhere, maybe datapath/README? Thanks,
Ben. On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 02:52:52PM -0700, Andy Zhou wrote: > 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
