typedef struct
{
u32 sw_if_index;
u32 flags;
// config entry is-valid flag
// exact match flags (valid if packet has 0/1/2/3 tags)
// L2 vs L3 forwarding mode
#define SUBINT_CONFIG_MATCH_0_TAG (1<<0)
#define SUBINT_CONFIG_MATCH_1_TAG (1<<1)
#define SUBINT_CONFIG_MATCH_2_TAG (1<<2)
#define SUBINT_CONFIG_MATCH_3_TAG (1<<3)
#define SUBINT_CONFIG_VALID (1<<4)
#define SUBINT_CONFIG_L2 (1<<5)
#define SUBINT_CONFIG_P2P (1<<6)
} subint_config_t;
typedef struct
{
subint_config_t untagged_subint;
subint_config_t default_subint;
u16 dot1q_vlans; // pool id for vlan table
u16 dot1ad_vlans; // pool id for vlan table
} main_intf_t;
Each main interface has untagged_subint and default_subint. The sw_if_index in
untagged_subint is same as the sw_if_index of the physical interface and the
‘flags’ has ‘SUBINT_CONFIG_VALID’ set. Since, by default, physical interface
forwards untagged traffic, is the physical interface itself is being treated as
untagged sub-interface ? is my understanding correct ?
-vijay
From: "Chandra Mohan, Vijay Mohan" <vijch...@ciena.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 3:52 PM
To: "vpp-dev@lists.fd.io" <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io>
Subject: Re: Failing to create untagged sub-interface
Fd.io pages states following in the “create sub-interfaces” section:
Example of how to created a subinterface to process untagged packets:
vpp# create sub-interfaces GigabitEthernet2/0/0 5 untagged
I am trying to do exactly same thing mentioned above and it fails. Is this a
known issue (a bug) ??
-vijay
From: "Chandra Mohan, Vijay Mohan" <vijch...@ciena.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 2:37 PM
To: "vpp-dev@lists.fd.io" <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io>
Subject: Failing to create untagged sub-interface
Was not sure if this email is being delivered properly or not, so, sending a
new email with the old email trail:
Looking to understand the significance of “SUBINT_CONFIG_VALID” flag. When is
it set and why ? untagged sub-interface creation fails when this flag is set.
Question is when is this flag being set at first place ?? Does this flag
indicate that a valid vlan is configured on this interface ? Still looking in
to the code but, so far, did not find any instance in the configuration code
path (up until “ethernet_sw_interface_add_del”) where this flag is being set.
-vijay
From: "Chandra Mohan, Vijay Mohan"
<vijch...@ciena.com<mailto:vijch...@ciena.com>>
Date: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 10:16 AM
To: "vpp-dev@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io>"
<vpp-dev@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io>>
Subject: Re: Unable to create sub-interface with 'untagged' option
Just wanted to check if you anyone got a chance to look at this ? Am I missing
some configuration here before creating a sub-interface for untagged frames ?
-Vijay
From: "Chandra Mohan, Vijay Mohan"
<vijch...@ciena.com<mailto:vijch...@ciena.com>>
Date: Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 3:57 PM
To: "vpp-dev@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io>"
<vpp-dev@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io>>
Subject: Re: Unable to create sub-interface with 'untagged' option
Did anyone get a chance to take a look at this ?
-vijay
From: "Chandra Mohan, Vijay Mohan"
<vijch...@ciena.com<mailto:vijch...@ciena.com>>
Date: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 1:35 PM
To: "vpp-dev@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io>"
<vpp-dev@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io>>
Subject: Unable to create sub-interface with 'untagged' option
Hi All,
Creation of a sub-interface with ‘untagged’ option fails with the message “
create sub-interfaces: vlan is already in use” . Any idea what I am missing
here ? There is no other configs present and trying to create sub-interface for
the first time.
vpp# create sub-interfaces GigabitEthernet5/0/0 1 untagged
create sub-interfaces: vlan is already in use
Thanks,
Vijay
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#10559): https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/10559
Mute This Topic: https://lists.fd.io/mt/25750421/21656
Group Owner: vpp-dev+ow...@lists.fd.io
Unsubscribe: https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
