[dpdk-dev] Reg: promiscuous mode on VF

[bharath paulraj]

Hi Lu, Helin, Greg,

  Many thanks for your response, which is really quick. Now, If I want to
implement L2 bridging with Intel virtualization technologies, using 82599
controller, then Michael is my only hope, as getting the new kernel
versions and upstream support will take considerable amount of time.

   Michael, Could you please share your experience on L2 bridging using
Intel virtualization technologies.

Thanks,
Bharath

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Rose, Gregory V <gregory.v.rose at intel.com>
wrote:

> Intel has not supported promiscuous mode for virtual functions due to the
> security concerns mentioned below.
>
> There will be upstream support in an upcoming Linux kernel for setting
> virtual functions as "trusted" and when that is available then Intel will
> allow virtual functions to enter unicast promiscuous mode on those Ethernet
> controllers that support promiscuous mode for virtual functions in the
> HW/FW.  Be aware that not all Intel Ethernet controllers have support for
> unicast promiscuous mode for virtual functions.  The only currently
> released product that does is the X710/XL710.
>
> The key take away is that unicast promiscuous mode for X710/XL710 virtual
> functions requires Linux kernel support, iproute2 package support and
> driver support.  Only when all three of these are in place will the feature
> work.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Greg
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zhang, Helin
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 9:04 AM
> To: bharath paulraj <bharathpaul at gmail.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo <
> wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>; Rowden, Aaron F <aaron.f.rowden at intel.com>; Rose,
> Gregory V <gregory.v.rose at intel.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Qiu, Michael <michael.qiu at intel.com>; Jayakumar,
> Muthurajan <muthurajan.jayakumar at intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] Reg: promiscuous mode on VF
>
> Hi Bharath
>
> For your question of "why intel does not support unicast promiscuos
> mode?", I'd ask Aaron or Greg to give answers.
> Thank you very much!
>
> Regards,
> Helin
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of bharath paulraj
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 11:29 PM
> > To: Lu, Wenzhuo
> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Reg: promiscuous mode on VF
> >
> > Hi Lu,
> >
> > Many thanks for your response. Again I have few more queries.
> > If VF unicast promiscuous mode is not supported then can't we
> > implement a Layer 2 bridging functionality using intel virtualization
> > technologies? Or Is there any other way, say tweeking some hardware
> > registers or drivers, which may help us in implementing Layer 2 bridging.
> > Also I would like to know, why intel does not support unicast promiscuos
> mode?
> > It could have been optional register settings and user should have had
> > a previleage to set or unset it. Besides, security reasons, is there
> > any other big reason why Intel does not support this?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bharath Paulraj
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 6:15 AM, Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Bharath,
> > >
> > > >     2) Is the above supported for 82599 controller? If it is
> > > > supported
> > > in the NIC,
> > > > please provide the steps to enable.
> > > Talking about 82599, VF unicast promiscuous mode is not supported.
> > > Only broadcast and multicast can be supported.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Bharath Paulraj
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Bharath
>



-- 
Regards,
Bharath