On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 09:59:24AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 09:58:58AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 03:05:57PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > There are (or at least will be) cases where this check can produce false
> > > positives. For example,
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 09:58:58AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 03:05:57PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> > There are (or at least will be) cases where this check can produce false
> > positives. For example, a flow which matches a non-MPLS packet and then
> > applies an MPLS pu
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 03:05:57PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> There are (or at least will be) cases where this check can produce false
> positives. For example, a flow which matches a non-MPLS packet and then
> applies an MPLS push action followed by an action to load the MPLS label.
So, I reme
There are (or at least will be) cases where this check can produce false
positives. For example, a flow which matches a non-MPLS packet and then
applies an MPLS push action followed by an action to load the MPLS label.
I believe this is the same problem that was recently discussed in
relation to
