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

[Thomas Monjalon]

2014-10-22 01:46, Liu, Jijiang:
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> > 2014-10-21 13:48, Liu, Jijiang:
> > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> > > > But I doubt we should configure a tunnel type for a whole port.
> > >
> > > Yes, your understanding is correct. It is for a whole port/PF, that's
> > > why we should add tunnel_type in rte_eth_conf structure.
> > 
> > Please explain me why a tunnel type should be associated to a port.
> > This design looks really broken.
> 
> I don't think this design looks really broken.
> 
> 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?

Other question, why a port is associated with only one tunnel type?

> Normally, the tunneling packet processing like below:
> Tunneling packet ------>PF processing/receive ---------> application SW do decapsulation -------> VF/VM processing

I really try to understand what you have in mind. Thanks for explaining
-- 
Thomas