On 6/2/20 10:04 PM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> Hi Ori, Andrew, Delek,
>
> (been a while eh?)
>
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 06:28:41PM +, Ori Kam wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> PSB,
> [...]
diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
index b0e4199..3bc8ce1 10064
Hi,
This change is proposed for 20.11.
It is suggested after internal discussions, where multiple suggestions were
considered, some of them similar to the ones suggested below.
Continuing the earlier correspondence in this thread, please send any other
comments/suggestions you have.
Regards,
D
Hi,
Kind reminder, please respond on the recent correspondence so we can conclude
this issue.
Regards,
Dekel
> -Original Message-
> From: Dekel Peled
> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 3:11 PM
> To: Ori Kam ; Adrien Mazarguil
>
> Cc: Andrew Rybchenko ;
> ferruh.yi...@intel.com; john.mcna
Hi, PSB.
> -Original Message-
> From: Ori Kam
> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 11:16 AM
> To: Adrien Mazarguil
> Cc: Andrew Rybchenko ; Dekel Peled
> ; ferruh.yi...@intel.com;
> john.mcnam...@intel.com; marko.kovace...@intel.com; Asaf Penso
> ; Matan Azrad ; Eli Britstein
> ; dev@dpdk.org
Hi Adrien,
Great to hear from you again.
> -Original Message-
> From: Adrien Mazarguil
> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 10:04 PM
> To: Ori Kam
> Cc: Andrew Rybchenko ; Dekel Peled
> ; ferruh.yi...@intel.com; john.mcnam...@intel.com;
> marko.kovace...@intel.com; Asaf Penso ; Matan Azrad
> ;
Hi Ori, Andrew, Delek,
(been a while eh?)
On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 06:28:41PM +, Ori Kam wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> PSB,
[...]
> > > diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > > index b0e4199..3bc8ce1 100644
> > > --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > > +++ b/l
Hi Andrew,
PSB,
Best,
Ori
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Rybchenko
> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 5:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [RFC] ethdev: add fragment attribute to IPv6 item
>
> On 5/31/20 5:43 PM, Dekel Peled wrote:
> > Using the current implementation of DPDK, an application cannot
On 5/31/20 5:43 PM, Dekel Peled wrote:
> Using the current implementation of DPDK, an application cannot
> match on fragmented/non-fragmented IPv6 packets in a simple way.
>
> In current implementation:
> IPv6 header doesn't contain information regarding the packet
> fragmentation.
> Fragmented IP
t; Azrad ; Eli Britstein ;
> dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] ethdev: add fragment attribute to IPv6 item
>
> On Sun, 31 May 2020 17:43:29 +0300
> Dekel Peled wrote:
>
> > Using the current implementation of DPDK, an application cannot match
> > on fragmented/n
On Sun, 31 May 2020 17:43:29 +0300
Dekel Peled wrote:
> Using the current implementation of DPDK, an application cannot
> match on fragmented/non-fragmented IPv6 packets in a simple way.
>
> In current implementation:
> IPv6 header doesn't contain information regarding the packet
> fragmentation
Using the current implementation of DPDK, an application cannot
match on fragmented/non-fragmented IPv6 packets in a simple way.
In current implementation:
IPv6 header doesn't contain information regarding the packet
fragmentation.
Fragmented IPv6 packets contain a dedicated extension header, as
d
11 matches
Mail list logo
