[dpdk-dev] Changes to 5tuple IPv4 filters in dpdk v2.0
knasim at sidebandnetworks.com
Wed Aug 5 16:53:52 CEST 2015
Thank you for the link. Seems to simply be an abstraction over the existing
filters so it is safe for me to upgrade to v2.0 :)
Since we are on the subject, are you aware of any filters on 82599 or
Fortville that may provide subnet filtering(I can specify something like
192.168.0.0/16 instead of host addresses)? What about flow director
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Vladimir Medvedkin <medvedkinv at gmail.com>
> Hi Kam,
> 1) The reason is discussed in
> 2) No, it's still not supported (on current NICs). At the moment ntuple is
> supported only by igb and ixgbe. If you look at
> drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c you can see ntuple_filter_to_5tuple
> function which translate rte_eth_ntuple_filter to ixgbe_5tuple_filter_info,
> so mask can be either UINT32_MAX or 0. It's hardware limitation (see 82599
> datasheet 126.96.36.199 L3/L4 5-tuple Filters).
> 2015-08-04 23:44 GMT+03:00 Kamraan Nasim <knasim at sidebandnetworks.com>:
>> Hi DPDK community,
>> I've been using DPDK v1.7 and v1.8 for the past year. On updating to
>> v2.0.0, I see that *rte_5tuple_filter* has been deprecated as well as the
>> associated install/remove call,* rte_eth_dev_add_5tuple_filter()*
>> I now see that rte_eth_ntuple_filter has been added in place.
>> 1) Is there a specific reason for removing backward compatibility? As in
>> there a known issue with rte_5tuple_filter infra that was discovered in
>> 2) One limitation of rte_5tuple_filter was that it could not be used to
>> filter /24 or /16 ip addresses(subnet filtering). I now see that the
>> src_ip_mask and dst_ip_mask is 32 bits and a separate
>> has been introduced. Does this imply that we NOW support subnet
>> filtering(use mask for wildcard masking)?
>> Any help or pointers on the subject will be greatly appreciated!!!
More information about the dev