On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 09:50:15 +0200, Simon Horman wrote: > I believe that in order to avoid per-packet overhead and at the same time > code complexity the TLVs should be described in-order. So matching on > TLV-A,TLV-B,TLV-C would be a different match to TLV-C,TLV-A,TLV-B. An > order-independent match could be added if desired in future.
Although better than the binary format, I doubt that it would be useful. I can't imagine a real use case where you would want such match. Instead, what you want is a match on a particular TLV, wherever it is in the data. For start, we can support just a single TLV. I.e. when matching on TLV-A, all of these would match: TLV-A,TLV-B,TLV-C; TLV-B,TLV-A,TLV-C; TLV-B,TLV-C,TLV-A. And this one won't match: TLV-B,TLV-C,TLV-D. Jiri
