I want to know what this IPv4 Option field affects the end user? Are there any
protocols or user programs that stop working without this?
We, as a communication operator, need to know this issue, because we want to
use VPP as high-loaded NAT instead of iptables.
Thanks!
--
Yours sincerely,
Denis
Got it, thanks!
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Neale Ranns (nranns)
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> No. If we did allow that then every receiver on that interface would
> receive packets encapsulated with that label, which is equivalent to the
> label being upstream assigned and probably not what you wa
I wonder whether VirtualEthernet0/0/1 has been deleted and created again while
sub-interface BonEthernet0.1514 was created in between. Looking at the
sw_if_index for these interfaces:
·VirtualEthernet0/0/0 => 5
·BonEthernet0.1514 => 6
·VirtualEthernet0/0/1 => 7
I wond
The 2005 paper that Dave references has an unusual union of Abstract and
Conclusions. The abstract states:
>Surprisingly, our findings indicate that it is feasible to restore support
for options in the wide-area.
I read that expecting to see some magic technical solution in the
conclusion. The ma
Soheil,
> That paper only shows that "in their experiments they saw that half of the
> routers in INTERNET drop the packets with IPv4-Option", but measurements
> targeted for the path of packets in internet is just a use case.
>
> Think about different third party NFV containers running on our
Dave,
That paper only shows that "in their experiments they saw that half of the
routers in INTERNET drop the packets with IPv4-Option", but measurements
targeted for the path of packets in internet is just a use case.
Think about different third party NFV containers running on our private
datace
I agree with Ole. See
https://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2005/EECS-2005-24.pdf
From: vpp-dev-boun...@lists.fd.io [mailto:vpp-dev-boun...@lists.fd.io] On
Behalf Of Burt Silverman
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 12:49 PM
To: Ole Troan
Cc: Soheil Abbasloo ; vpp-dev
Subject: Re: [vpp-dev]
Hi,
No. If we did allow that then every receiver on that interface would receive
packets encapsulated with that label, which is equivalent to the label being
upstream assigned and probably not what you want. An MPLS tunnel can itself be
P2MP so the same argument applies.
If you have one or more
I believe the standards should be adhered to. RFC791 has not been
obsoleted. One man's opinion (sentence 1).
Burt
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
> Soheil,
>
> Others my correct me, but as far as I know IPv4 options are for all
> practical purposes deprecated.
> Lots of forwa
Soheil,
Others my correct me, but as far as I know IPv4 options are for all practical
purposes deprecated.
Lots of forwarding planes do a validation check of 0x45 on the first octet.
Likewise for middleboxes (e.g. NAT).
Have you tried if you can get these packets passed any routers / across the
Yichen,
We need more information for the problem as described. Does the problem just
show up when you configure VPP? If that is the case, please unicast me the
config and procedure to recreate the problem. If it is difficult to reproduce,
please run the debug image with gdb and I can work with
Thx for fast response!
That solved my problem, now I can debug it!
BR /Tobias
On 29 June 2017 at 13:46, Damjan Marion (damarion)
wrote:
>
> > On 29 Jun 2017, at 11:25, Tobias Sundqvist
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi I am devloping a crypto node using vpp (version 17.02) on Ubuntu. I
> first setup the n
You can also use the command-line arg "... dpdk { ... poll-sleep
... } ..." to reduce CPU utilization at low vector rates.
Thanks… Dave
-Original Message-
From: vpp-dev-boun...@lists.fd.io [mailto:vpp-dev-boun...@lists.fd.io] On
Behalf Of Damjan Marion (damarion)
Sent: Thursday, June 2
Hi all,
This is Soheil. We are working on a project involving the IPv4 In-Band OAM.
I have tried to use VPP in a simple scenario (like the simple
switching/routing tutorial in fd.io) to pass IPv4-Options (in out case
TIMESTAMP option) between two containers. However, packets having IP-Option
fiel
> On 27 Jun 2017, at 20:07, Burt Silverman wrote:
>
> I came across the idea of running DPDK in non poll mode for low power/albeit
> lower performance, but I don't remember where. I am just wondering if anyone
> in VPP has done that, and if you have an easy way to configure that when
> runnin
> On 28 Jun 2017, at 11:00, Samuel S wrote:
>
> i need to include dpdk.h from plugins/dpdk/device/
> but when i include this header compiler give this error:
> fatal error: rte_config.h: No such file or directory
> #include
>
> who can i fix this probleam?
Can you provide whole build sequen
> On 29 Jun 2017, at 11:25, Tobias Sundqvist wrote:
>
> Hi I am devloping a crypto node using vpp (version 17.02) on Ubuntu. I first
> setup the nodes that I am going to use and it works fine just forwarding the
> packets as it should.
> But now I have implemented some crypto functions inside
Hi Neale,
For the IP-to-MPLS case, can we specify another label in
rpath.frp_label_stack (the vc label) in addition to specifying the
sw_if_index of an MPLS tunnel (which will carry the tunnel label)?
Thanks,
-nagp
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Neale Ranns (nranns)
wrote:
>
>
> Quite a few
Hi I am devloping a crypto node using vpp (version 17.02) on Ubuntu. I
first setup the nodes that I am going to use and it works fine just
forwarding the packets as it should.
But now I have implemented some crypto functions inside the nodes and also
added a new node of type process that should ini
19 matches
Mail list logo
