[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/9] librte_ether:add VxLAN packet identification API in librte_ether

[Thomas Monjalon]

2014-10-22 12:47, Liu, Jijiang:
> > > Currently, A PF  associated to a port, right? What tunnel type should
> > > be supported in a PF, which is required we configure it.
> > > Tunneling packet is encapsulation packet, in terms of VxLAN, packet
> > > format is outer L2 header+ outer L3 header +outer L4 header +
> > > tunneling header+ inner L2 header + inner L3 header + inner L4 header +PAY4.
> > > For a VM/VF, the  real useful packet data is "inner L2 header + inner
> > > L3 header + inner L4 header +PAY4".
> > >
> > > In NIC, A port/PF receive this kind of tunneling packet(outer
> > > L2+...PAY4), software should be responsible for decapsulating the
> > > packet and deliver real data(innerL2 + PAY4) to VM/VF。
> > >
> > > DPDK just provide API/mechanism to guarantee a PF/port to receive the
> > > tunneling packet data, the encapsulation/ decapsulation work should be
> > > done by user application.
> > 
> > You mean that all packets received on the PF which doesn't match the
> > configured tunnel type, won't be received by the software?
> 
> No, it will be received by the software.
> In terms of VxLAN packet, if tunnel type is not configured VXLAN type,
> and software can't use API to configure the UDP destination number. 
> Even if the incoming packet format is VXLAN packet format, hardware and
> software don't think it is VXLAN packet because we didn't configure UDP
> Destination port. 
> 
> Now I want to remove this limitation,  even if the  tunnel type is not
> configured at PF initialization phase, user also can configure the VxLAN
> UDP destination number.
> It is more flexible and reasonable.
> 
> > Other question, why a port is associated with only one tunnel type?
> 
> Good question. Now I think we had better remove this limitation because it is NIC related.
> 
> Two points are summarized here.
> 1. The tunnel types is for a whole port/PF, I have explained it a lots.
> 2. I will remove tunnel type configuration from rte_eth_conf structure.
> 
> Any comments?

Honestly, I haven't understood your explanation :)
I just understood that you want to remove tunnel type from rte_eth_conf
and I think it's a really good thing.

Thanks
-- 
Thomas