Hi Luk,
The following is the diagram of router plugin:
In order to insert routes from BIRD, the route will go through: BIRD -> tap
interface -> netlink plugin -> insert FIB.
Not tested the performance yet. But I guess it is a tap interface limitation.
I think a better way is just like Ed Warni
Hi Neale,
The intent of this classification is to direct OSPF packet to the node
tap-inject-neighbor,
Then the OSPF packet can be redirected to BIRD in Hosting system.
Thanks a lot,
Hongjun
At 2017-04-01 17:42:28, "Neale Ranns (nranns)" wrote:
Hi Hongjun,
The new Multicast FIB i
Hi Neale,
The intent of this classification is to direct OSPF packet to the node
tap-inject-neighbor,
Then the OSPF packet can be redirected to BIRD in Hosting system.
Thanks a lot,
Hongjun
At 2017-04-01 17:42:28, "Neale Ranns (nranns)" wrote:
Hi Hongjun,
The new Multicast FIB i
Hi Hongjun,
Is there a general mechanism to steer all ‘for-us’ traffic to
tap-inject-neighbor? i.e. given this:
set int ip address GigE0/0/0 10.10.10.10/24
how do packets to 10.10.10.10 get sent to tap-inject-neighbor?
/neale
From: 倪红军
Date: Monday, 3 April 2017 at 13:53
To: "Neale Ranns (nr
On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 08:37:46PM +0800, 倪红军 wrote:
> Hi Neale,
>
>
> The intent of this classification is to direct OSPF packet to the node
> tap-inject-neighbor,
> Then the OSPF packet can be redirected to BIRD in Hosting system.
You shouldn't need to use the classifier. A multicast route
On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 08:51:09PM +0800, 倪红军 wrote:
> Hi Luk,
>
>
> The following is the diagram of router plugin:
> In order to insert routes from BIRD, the route will go through: BIRD -> tap
> interface -> netlink plugin -> insert FIB.
> Not tested the performance yet. But I guess it is a tap
On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 01:10:40PM +, Neale Ranns (nranns) wrote:
> Hi Hongjun,
>
> Is there a general mechanism to steer all ‘for-us’ traffic to
> tap-inject-neighbor? i.e. given this:
> set int ip address GigE0/0/0 10.10.10.10/24
> how do packets to 10.10.10.10 get sent to tap-inject-neig
Does this need to be backported to stable/1704?
I just did a fresh pull and am getting the same error when trying to
install the .deb files.
Processing triggers for libc-bin (2.23-0ubuntu7) ...
Errors were encountered while processing:
vpp-api-python
alagalah@thing1:vpp (stable/1704)*$ git ld -
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for the explanation.
If we registered the tap-inject-tx node as a local/for-us feature then it would
be get all traffic sent to one of the router’s addresses, regardless of the L4
protocol. That might be a more robust solution. Local features are a relatively
new concept and pr
On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 04:55:20PM +, Neale Ranns (nranns) wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Thanks for the explanation.
>
> If we registered the tap-inject-tx node as a local/for-us feature then it
> would be get all traffic sent to one of the router’s addresses, regardless of
> the L4 protocol. That
I'd like to limit bandwidth for a particular snat address. I came across a
previous discussion on this
https://lists.fd.io/pipermail/vpp-dev/2016-October/002908.html without a
resolution.
I've been trying to figure out a way to get snat particular logs to get:
total bandwidth data from a particul
11 matches
Mail list logo
