On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
> [adding the list back]
>
> I think that that is somewhat separate from the documentation. I
> think that the documentation should probably focus on the
> protocol-specific field names these days, and document tp_src and
> tp_dst as obsolete. I sent out a patch:
> http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2014-October/046951.html
>
Thanks Ben, looks good to me,
> I'm not sure what you mean for OXM/NXM here and what you propose for
> it. Can you explain further?
I'm thinking if we can create a generic OXM/NXM field for matching L4 level
port number (i.e. NXM_OF_TP_SRC, NXM_OF_TP_DST).
And then we could define a mf_field for 'tp_src' and 'tp_dst' like this:
/* "tp_src".
*
* L4 header source port.
*
* Type: be16.
* Maskable: bitwise.
* Formatting: decimal.
* Prerequisites: eth type is ip.
* Access: read/write.
* NXM: NXM_OF_TP_SRC.
* OXM: OXM_OF_TP_SRC.
* OF1.0: exact match.
* OF1.1: exact match.
*/
MFF_TP_SRC,
/* "tp_dst".
*
* L4 header destination port.
*
* Type: be16.
* Maskable: bitwise.
* Formatting: decimal.
* Prerequisites: eth type is ip.
* Access: read/write.
* NXM: NXM_OF_TP_DST.
* OXM: OXM_OF_TP_DST.
* OF1.0: exact match.
* OF1.1: exact match.
*/
MFF_TP_DST,
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
