On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 05:28:26PM +, Mickey Spiegel wrote:
> > Could you expand on why priorities in a single stage aren't enough to
> > satisfy the use case?
> >
> >
> > If two features are configured independently with a mix of
> > prio
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 05:28:26PM +, Mickey Spiegel wrote:
> Could you expand on why priorities in a single stage aren't enough to
> satisfy the use case?
>
>
> If two features are configured independently with a mix of
> prioritized allow and drop rules, then with a single stage, a
> new se
gt;>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Mickey Spiegel <
>>>>>>> emspi...@us.ibm.com>
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > -
>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Mickey Spiegel <
>>>>>> mickeys@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Mickey Spiegel <
>>>>>> emspi.
; On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Mickey Spiegel <
>>>>> emspi...@us.ibm.com>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > -"dev" wrote: -
>>>>> > >> To: Mickey Spiegel
>>>
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Guru Shetty wrote:
>
>
> On 2 August 2016 at 12:27, Russell Bryant wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Guru Shetty wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2 August 2016 at 12:01, Russell Bryant wrote:
>>>
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Guru Shetty wro
On 2 August 2016 at 12:27, Russell Bryant wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Guru Shetty wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 2 August 2016 at 12:01, Russell Bryant wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Guru Shetty wrote:
>>>
The 2 ct_commit for deletion of firewall rules will likel
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Guru Shetty wrote:
>
>
> On 2 August 2016 at 12:01, Russell Bryant wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Guru Shetty wrote:
>>
>>> The 2 ct_commit for deletion of firewall rules will likely be tricky.
>>> This
>>> will need unit tests.
>>>
>>
>> I don't
On 2 August 2016 at 12:01, Russell Bryant wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Guru Shetty wrote:
>
>> The 2 ct_commit for deletion of firewall rules will likely be tricky. This
>> will need unit tests.
>>
>
> I don't think I understand the concern. Can you expand a bit on what you
> mean
> > -"dev" wrote: -----
>>>> > >> To: Mickey Spiegel
>>>> > >> From: Russell Bryant
>>>> > >> Sent by: "dev"
>>>> > >> Date: 07/29/2016 10:02AM
>>>> > >> Cc: ovs dev
>>>
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Guru Shetty wrote:
> The 2 ct_commit for deletion of firewall rules will likely be tricky. This
> will need unit tests.
>
I don't think I understand the concern. Can you expand a bit on what you
mean by "2 ct_commit for deletion of firewall rules"?
--
Russell B
t;>>
>>> > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Mickey Spiegel
>>> > wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > -"dev" wrote: -
>>> > >> To: Mickey Spiegel
>>> > >> From: Russell Bryant
>>> > >
gt;> > >
>> > > -"dev" wrote: -
>> > >> To: Mickey Spiegel
>> > >> From: Russell Bryant
>> > >> Sent by: "dev"
>> > >> Date: 07/29/2016 10:02AM
>> > >> Cc
>>
> >> > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Mickey Spiegel >
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > -"dev" wrote: -
> >> > >> To: Mickey Spiegel
> >> > >> From: Russ
key Spiegel
> > >> From: Russell Bryant
> > >> Sent by: "dev"
> > >> Date: 07/29/2016 10:02AM
> > >> Cc: ovs dev
> > >> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] ovn: Add second ACL stage
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Jul 29
> Date: 07/29/2016 10:02AM
> >> Cc: ovs dev
> >> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] ovn: Add second ACL stage
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Mickey Spiegel >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> This patch adds a
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Mickey Spiegel
wrote:
>
> -"dev" wrote: -
>> To: Mickey Spiegel
>> From: Russell Bryant
>> Sent by: "dev"
>> Date: 07/29/2016 10:02AM
>> Cc: ovs dev
>> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] ov
-"dev" wrote: -
To: Mickey Spiegel
From: Russell Bryant
Sent by: "dev"
Date: 07/29/2016 10:02AM
Cc: ovs dev
Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] ovn: Add second ACL stage
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Mickey Spiegel
wrote:
>
> This patch adds a second
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Mickey Spiegel
wrote:
>
> This patch adds a second logical switch ingress ACL stage, and
> correspondingly a second logical switch egress ACL stage. This
> allows for more than one ACL-based feature to be applied in the
> ingress and egress logical switch pipeli
From: Mickey Spiegel
This patch adds a second logical switch ingress ACL stage, and
correspondingly a second logical switch egress ACL stage. This
allows for more than one ACL-based feature to be applied in the
ingress and egress logical switch pipelines. The features
driving the different ACL
20 matches
Mail list logo