Re: [PATCH iproute2 net-next] tc: flower: support matching flags

2017-01-19 Thread Paul Blakey
On 18/01/2017 14:41, Jiri Benc wrote: On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 12:55:59 +0100, Jiri Benc wrote: On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 13:51:13 +0200, Paul Blakey wrote: It mimics the kernel packing of flags, I have no problem either way (flags, or ip_flags/tcp_flags pairs), what do you think jiri? What Simon says m

Re: [PATCH iproute2 net-next] tc: flower: support matching flags

2017-01-18 Thread Jiri Benc
On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 12:55:59 +0100, Jiri Benc wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 13:51:13 +0200, Paul Blakey wrote: > > It mimics the kernel packing of flags, I have no problem either way > > (flags, or ip_flags/tcp_flags pairs), what do you think jiri? > > What Simon says makes sense to me. ip_flags and

Re: [PATCH iproute2 net-next] tc: flower: support matching flags

2017-01-04 Thread Paul Blakey
On 04/01/2017 12:33, Simon Horman wrote: On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 01:54:34PM +0200, Paul Blakey wrote: ... Hi Paul, Matching name was from the idea that we are doing is matching. And regarding documentation/flag names I didn't want tc tool to be need of a update each time a new flag is intro

Re: [PATCH iproute2 net-next] tc: flower: support matching flags

2017-01-04 Thread Jiri Benc
On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 13:51:13 +0200, Paul Blakey wrote: > It mimics the kernel packing of flags, I have no problem either way > (flags, or ip_flags/tcp_flags pairs), what do you think jiri? What Simon says makes sense to me. ip_flags and tcp_flags sounds like the best solution so far (even better t

Re: [PATCH iproute2 net-next] tc: flower: support matching flags

2017-01-04 Thread Simon Horman
On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 01:54:34PM +0200, Paul Blakey wrote: ... Hi Paul, > Matching name was from the idea that we are doing is matching. > And regarding documentation/flag names I didn't want tc tool to be need of a > update each time a new flag is introduced, > But I guess I can add two optio

Re: [PATCH iproute2 net-next] tc: flower: support matching flags

2017-01-03 Thread Jiri Benc
On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 13:54:34 +0200, Paul Blakey wrote: > Matching name was from the idea that we are doing is matching. But we don't have matching_src_mac etc., either, although we're matching on those fields. > And regarding documentation/flag names I didn't want tc tool to be need > of a update

Re: [PATCH iproute2 net-next] tc: flower: support matching flags

2017-01-03 Thread Paul Blakey
On 02/01/2017 20:55, Jiri Benc wrote: On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 15:06:49 +0200, Paul Blakey wrote: Enhance flower to support matching on flags. The 1st flag allows to match on whether the packet is an IP fragment. Example: # add a flower filter that will drop fragmented packets # (b

Re: [PATCH iproute2 net-next] tc: flower: support matching flags

2017-01-02 Thread Jiri Benc
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 15:06:49 +0200, Paul Blakey wrote: > Enhance flower to support matching on flags. > > The 1st flag allows to match on whether the packet is > an IP fragment. > > Example: > > # add a flower filter that will drop fragmented packets > # (bit 0 of control flags) >

Re: [PATCH iproute2 net-next] tc: flower: support matching flags

2016-12-29 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 15:06:49 +0200 Paul Blakey wrote: > Enhance flower to support matching on flags. > > The 1st flag allows to match on whether the packet is > an IP fragment. > > Example: > > # add a flower filter that will drop fragmented packets > # (bit 0 of control flags) >

[PATCH iproute2 net-next] tc: flower: support matching flags

2016-12-28 Thread Paul Blakey
Enhance flower to support matching on flags. The 1st flag allows to match on whether the packet is an IP fragment. Example: # add a flower filter that will drop fragmented packets # (bit 0 of control flags) tc filter add dev ens4f0 protocol ip parent : \