> As per IPSEC ESP RFC 4303, for both tunnel mode or transport mode,
> next proto 50, so we cannot identify a packet is for tunnel mode or
> transport mode by just packet parsing.
> Am I missing something ?
You are absolutely correct, the only way to tell the difference is
to parse the next_proto f
On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 11:53 PM Alexander Kozyrev wrote:
>
> Support the IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) in transport mode.
As per IPSEC ESP RFC 4303, for both tunnel mode or transport mode,
next proto 50, so we cannot identify a packet is for tunnel mode or
transport mode by just packet
> -Original Message-
> From: Alexander Kozyrev
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 9:23 PM
>
> Support the IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) in transport mode.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Kozyrev
> Acked-by: Morten Brørup
> ---
> lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_ptype.h | 36 +++
Support the IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) in transport mode.
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kozyrev
Acked-by: Morten Brørup
---
lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_ptype.h | 36 ++--
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_ptype.h b/lib
4 matches
Mail list logo