Hi Li, There are few errors in your statement.
1) SNAT - is an obsolete name for the old nat plugin. 2) NAT is split among multiple plugins 3) one of the plugins - nat44-ed (the most used and preferred) does support all of the things you have mentioned Please feel free to search in the community mailing list for configuration examples. There is also .rst file in the nat44-ed plugin directory (may not contain all of the supported configuration). Also check the api.c and cli.c for all available configuration options. After you have done above mentioned feel free to ask regarding specific configuration issue. Best regards, Filip Varga pi 21. 10. 2022 o 4:01 lihuawei <lihuawei_...@163.com> napísal(a): > Hi John & Everyone & Community, > > In my scene, it is the demand to put multiple subnets in one BD. A few > days ago, I have found the other proper idea to implement the demand mentioned > in the mail subject and original mail. > > This problem and mail can be close now. > > Have a nice day, everybody! > > > Thanks & Regards, > Huawei LI > > 2022年10月21日 00:45，John Lo <lojultra2...@outlook.com> 写道： > > Hi Huawei, > > Some comments on supporting multiple BVIs in a BD: > > 1. There are assumptions in the bridging code including only 1 BVI per BD > and it will be the last interface of a BD's flood list. To support > multiple BVIs per BD will make the code more complicated and less efficient > from performance point of view. > > 2. All interfaces, including BVI, in a BD can talk to each other via MAC > address learning. There is no concept of L3 IP address nor awareness of > IPs in separate VRFs. Thus, the concept of multiple BVIs in a BD each in > different VRFs does not match the L2 bridging concept. While it may be > possible to enhance BD support to understand IP and VRF at L3, it will > again make the code more complicated and affect performance. > > My question would be, isn't it more natural to put each subnet in a > separate BD with its BVI in the desired VRF? > > Regards, > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: lihuawei <lihuawei_...@163.com> > Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2022 11:30 PM > To: o...@cisco.com; fiva...@cisco.com; klement.sek...@gmail.com; Neale > Ranns <ne...@graphiant.com>; lojultra2...@outlook.com; slu...@cisco.com; > vpp-dev@lists.fd.io > Subject: snat support bind to specific subnets > > Hi Ole, Filip, Klement, Neale, John, Steven, &Community, > > I have a demand about snat. With in a vpc, different subnets need use > different snat ip to the internet, but the vpp snat feature now do not > support snat ip bind to specific subnets. I have two ideas to resolve this: > 1. modify and develop snat feature to support snat ip bind to specific > subnets. > 2. use multiple vrfs to isolate subnets, one vrf’s subnets use one snat > ip, but the bd bvi now only support one in one bd, the non-bvi loop does > not forward L3. So modify and develop bd bvi to support multiple bvi > interfaces in one bd may be one better idea. > > Do I understand right and the idea 2 is the better? Anybody who has better > idea, please help. > > Thanks and Regards, > Huawei LI > > > > > >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#22079): https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/22079 Mute This Topic: https://lists.fd.io/mt/94377538/21656 Group Owner: vpp-dev+ow...@lists.fd.io Unsubscribe: https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/leave/1480452/21656/631435203/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
