Hi Miklos,
> do you see any remaining issue with the TCP MSS clamping plugin that has not
> been addressed yet?
> The patch set has been hanging for quite some time and I am wondering how we
> could proceed further. https://gerrit.fd.io/r/c/vpp/+/15144
Just did a code review. Please look.
If yo
Hi Matthews,
Thanks for the reply. I will try with this patch and will let you know my
observations.
Regards
Amit
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#17185): https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/17185
Mute This Topic: https://lists.fd
Hi Venkat,
Ideally, we should not let ABF be configured if the interface is already tied
to an ACL. Conversely, an ACL should be honored when the interface is tied to
an ABF. Right?
You might want to confirm how we handle the behavior from experts here.
BTW, the second scenario you seeing the cra
IMO it's reasonable to use ACL and ABF on the same interface as they provide
independent functions, especially when they are matching against different
criteria.
Re the debug CLI, it's often not robust to garbage input. If the API has the
same problem though, I'll fix it.
Neale
tpyed by my f
We do have a batch of fixes scheduled for the final release of LTS 19.08.3,
unfortunately this one didn’t get selected as it is a “refactor”. I tried to
cherry-pick it, it depends on several patches, one of them renamed a plugin
so that would be a no-go from the stability point of view.
Wit
> On 11 Aug 2020, at 17:30, Neale Ranns (nranns) wrote:
>
>
>
> IMO it's reasonable to use ACL and ABF on the same interface as they provide
> independent functions, especially when they are matching against different
> criteria.
+1. Those two are orthogonal functions. ABF uses the acl as
Andres/Neale,
I confirm to see the same behavior when using ligato etcd proto models
which I believe eventually calls APIs in vpp.
Please let me know if you want me to do any further tests that would help
you fix the issues.
IMO it's reasonable to use ACL and ABF on the same interface as they
pro
Hi NAT VPP devs,
First of all, thanks for your contribution to the community. We use
Deterministic NAT feature on a huge demand, without any big problems.
It´s about the harcoded limit of 1.000 sessions ( preallocated
vectors) per host. I would like increase this value, it's safe to
Andrew/Neale,
We spent some more time today trying to root cause the issues. The
following are the VPP backtraces for the respective issues. We tried this
on VPP version 20.05
Hope this gives some clues towards fixing the issue.
Issue 1 Test Scenario: ABF and ACL attached to the same interface
