This is really helpful~! Post v2~
Thanks, Alex Wang, On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > OK, I understand the question now. > > When + or - is used, it's supposed to work as documented for tcp_flags > in ovs-ofctl(8), quoted below. We don't really document the odp format > anywhere; maybe we should. > > tcp_flags=flags/mask > tcp_flags=[+flag...][-flag...] > Bitwise match on TCP flags. The flags and mask are 16-bit > num‐ > bers written in decimal or in hexadecimal prefixed by 0x. > Each > 1-bit in mask requires that the corresponding bit in flags > must > match. Each 0-bit in mask causes the corresponding bit > to be > ignored. > > Alternatively, the flags can be specified by their symbolic > names > (listed below), each preceded by either + for a flag that > must be > set, or - for a flag that must be unset, without any other > delim‐ > iters between the flags. Flags not mentioned are > wildcarded. > For example, tcp,tcp_flags=+syn-ack matches TCP SYNs that > are not > ACKs. > > TCP protocol currently defines 9 flag bits, and additional 3 > bits > are reserved (must be transmitted as zero), see RFCs 793, > 3168, > and 3540. The flag bits are, numbering from the least > signifi‐ > cant bit: > > 0: fin No more data from sender. > > 1: syn Synchronize sequence numbers. > > 2: rst Reset the connection. > > 3: psh Push function. > > 4: ack Acknowledgement field significant. > > 5: urg Urgent pointer field significant. > > 6: ece ECN Echo. > > 7: cwr Congestion Windows Reduced. > > 8: ns Nonce Sum. > > 9-11: Reserved. > > 12-15: Not matchable, must be zero. > > > On Sat, May 02, 2015 at 02:15:48PM -0700, Alex Wang wrote: > > in the parse_flag() function in odp_util, it seems that we can mask the > > flag. > > Also, the parsing is different for masked flag and unmasked flag. > > (e.g., the masked flag parsing uses + and - as delimiter, while the > unmasked > > flag parsing use , as delimiter) > > > > Thanks, > > Alex Wang, > > > > On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I don't understand the question yet, can you rephrase it? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Ben. > > > > > > On Sat, May 02, 2015 at 11:21:13AM -0700, Alex Wang wrote: > > > > Thx for pointing me to the example~ > > > > > > > > After check the tests, want to ask what is the difference between > masked > > > > flag and unmasked flag? especially for tunnel, > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Alex Wang, > > > > > > > > On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Can we just add an example to tests/odp.at? > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, May 02, 2015 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Alex Wang wrote: > > > > > > Thx, I'll apply this first, trying to think of a good way to > test it~ > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 08:58:57PM -0700, Alex Wang wrote: > > > > > > > > This commit fixes a bug in the parse_flag() function which > causes > > > > > > > > failure of parsing tunnel flags like: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tunnel(tun_id=0x0,src=1.2.3.4,dst=1.2.3.5,tos=0,ttl=64,flags(-df+csum+key)) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Jacob Cherkas <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Wang <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fantastic, thank you--I noticed the same problem a few days ago > > > testing > > > > > > > OVN but hadn't had time to follow up yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you add a test? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
