On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 7:23 AM Ole Troan <otr...@employees.org> wrote:
> Dear Jon, > > I think were we left this last was a "shared TODO" list. > Yeah, sorry, I got tasked with something else for a bit... > The MAP specific shallow virtual reassembly has been generalised, and > moved to a separate component. > SVR now runs in front of MAP, so MAP doesn't need to deal with reassembly > itself. That simplifies that handling quite a bit. > We had several bugs against the MAP fragmentation handling. Perhaps these changes have fixed them? We are about to pull and merge these changes, so we will check again! What do you see as gaps? Feel free to patch. > We have some outstanding bugs against MAP-E/T here: 1) MAP BR doesn't send ICMPv6 unreachable messages when a packet fails to match a MAP domain 2) MAP-T BR can't translate IPv4 ICMP Echo Reply to IPv6 3) Pre-resolve ipv4|ipv6 function isn't working when MAP-T mode is used 4) TCP MSS value isn't applied to encapsulated packets when MAP-E mode is used Issues 1) and 2) are likely the same underlying problem. Issue 3) is what started this thread last April. Issue 4) is new-to-me. Our bug log suggests that a VPP patch was made for it by Vladimir Ratnikov. HTH, jdl
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#14540): https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/14540 Mute This Topic: https://lists.fd.io/mt/31018611/21656 Group Owner: vpp-dev+ow...@lists.fd.io Unsubscribe: https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
