Liu, Chunmei would like to recall the message, "[vpp-dev] vcl preload usage
error".
___
vpp-dev mailing list
vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
Thanks Florin,
I try to run a simple netcat application this time.
On one server I start vpp, vpp status show:
-
vpp.service - vector packet processing engine
Loaded: loaded (/lib/systemd/system/vpp.service; disabled; vendor preset:
enabled)
Hi Chunmei,
The first error says you’re trying to bind multiple times to the same address,
which is not supported. You’re getting the second error because you don’t have
a fib path to the destination of your connect.
Hope this helps,
Florin
> On Jan 17, 2018, at 3:55 PM, Liu, Chunmei wrote
Hi Juraj,
Can you check what “show node counters” or “sho run” give you? Do you see any
evidence of span nodes being active or any packet drops? I think the output
interface for mirrored packets in L2 also needs to be in L2 mode as well.
You can find SPAN test cases in test/test_span.py to chec
Hi John,
Thanks for the summary. I’ve been using 1710 when I wrote the e-mail, but I’ve
tried 1801 and I could configure span on a veth interface (that’s my setup for
now), but I didn’t see any traffic on the destination port (I tried loopback
bvi and an L2 and L3 physical interface as destinat
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 2:32 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
> Hi Jon,
>
> I find embedded documentation (and excessive comments) problematic for
> that exact reason.
>
Absolutely agree 100%.
> We're never going to make them consistent.
>
Sadly, correct again.
> Stepping back a little; I think we agre
Hello Neale, Dave,
@Neale
I would like to apply my modifications and let ip4-rewrite apply its,
and compute the checksum (once). I don't want to replace it for the
reason you cited (MTU, etc) .I don't want to put my node after
ip4-rewrite, because i will apply my modifications, and have to
r
Here's one way to solve the problem, which should result in a patch we can
merge:
* Add head-of-feature-arc processing to ip4/6_lookup_inline() under control
of an integer argument [which will be passed as a constant 0 or 1].
* Create a couple of new nodes “ip4-lookup-with-post-lookup-
In order to prevent the calculation of the checksum twice your node would need
to run instead of ip4-rewrite - is that your intention? – there’s quite a bit
more going on in that node! If instead you want your node to run as well as
ip4-rewrite, then it can be an output-feature (arc=ip4-output)
If API maintainers can't maintain their own documentation when it's directly
adjacent to the API definition, what makes anyone think they would do it in a
separate, decoupled document?
This is not a technology issue.
It's simple: People need to write the docs. The process (reviewers, Jenkins)
Hello Neale, Dave,
Thanks for your answers.
I would like to catch all (not on a prefix basis) traffic to-be-forwarded.
- I would need the TX sw_if_index, so i think the nodes should be placed
after ip4-lookup.
- i have to be before ip4-rewrite, not to compute checksums 2 times.
Right now, my
Hi Korian,
Constructing the VLIB graph between ipX-lookup and ipX-rewrite (and really to
interface-output) is best achieved by following the DPO architecture. You can
read a little about it here:
https://wiki.fd.io/view/VPP/DPOs_and_Feature_Arcs
Step one is to implement a new DPOs to represen
Hi Jon,
> Can we add to the "Future Plans" list?
> I would like to see it draw a correlation between a message's actual
> list of fields and the attempt at a documentation for those fields.
> Specifically, there always seems to be some discrepancy and it is
> hard to tell which to believe without
13 matches
Mail list logo
