On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Joe Stringer wrote:
> On 30 September 2015 at 17:31, Pravin Shelar wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Joe Stringer wrote:
>>> Previously, if userspace specified ct_state bits in the flow key which
>>> are currently undefined (and therefore unsupported), t
On 30 September 2015 at 17:31, Pravin Shelar wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Joe Stringer wrote:
>> Previously, if userspace specified ct_state bits in the flow key which
>> are currently undefined (and therefore unsupported), then they would be
>> ignored. This could cause unexpected b
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Joe Stringer wrote:
> Previously, if userspace specified ct_state bits in the flow key which
> are currently undefined (and therefore unsupported), then they would be
> ignored. This could cause unexpected behaviour in future if userspace is
> extended to support a
Previously, if userspace specified ct_state bits in the flow key which
are currently undefined (and therefore unsupported), then they would be
ignored. This could cause unexpected behaviour in future if userspace is
extended to support additional bits but attempts to communicate with the
current ve
