On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 09:55:41AM -0600, Saul St. John wrote:
> On 03/07/2013 10:44 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 09:00:49PM -0600, Saul St. John wrote:
> >>1) Is there a reason for not allowing this field as the target of
> >>mangling actions?
> >I don't know a good one. I gues
On 03/07/2013 10:44 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 09:00:49PM -0600, Saul St. John wrote:
1) Is there a reason for not allowing this field as the target of
mangling actions?
I don't know a good one. I guess that no one has implemented it, and
that is probably because there has be
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 09:00:49PM -0600, Saul St. John wrote:
> I was trying to bit-twiddle ARP packets with NXAST_REG_MOVE actions,
> when I found that NXM_OF_ARP_OP fields aren't writable. nicira-ext.h
> doesn't explicitly call out unacceptable destinations, although
> NXM_OF_ARP_OP isn't includ
Hello!
I was trying to bit-twiddle ARP packets with NXAST_REG_MOVE actions,
when I found that NXM_OF_ARP_OP fields aren't writable. nicira-ext.h
doesn't explicitly call out unacceptable destinations, although
NXM_OF_ARP_OP isn't included on the list of acceptable dst. I am curious:
1) Is there a
