[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] examples/l3fwd: increase number of routes

[Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula]

>On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 6:23 AM <pbhagavatula at marvell.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula at marvell.com>
>>
>> Increase the number of routes from 8 to 16 that are statically added
>for
>> lpm and em mode as most of the SoCs support more than 8
>interfaces.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavatula at marvell.com>
>> ---
>>  examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c  | 72
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_lpm.c | 16 +++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 88 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c
>b/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c
>> index 74a7c8fa4..c07a5b937 100644
>> --- a/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c
>> +++ b/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em.c
>> @@ -103,6 +103,18 @@ static struct ipv4_l3fwd_em_route
>ipv4_l3fwd_em_route_array[] = {
>>         {{RTE_IPV4(201, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 20, 0, 1),  102, 12,
>IPPROTO_TCP}, 1},
>>         {{RTE_IPV4(111, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 30, 0, 1),  101, 11,
>IPPROTO_TCP}, 2},
>>         {{RTE_IPV4(211, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 40, 0, 1),  102, 12,
>IPPROTO_TCP}, 3},
>> +       {{RTE_IPV4(121, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 10, 0, 1),  101, 11,
>IPPROTO_TCP}, 4},
>> +       {{RTE_IPV4(221, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 20, 0, 1),  102, 12,
>IPPROTO_TCP}, 5},
>> +       {{RTE_IPV4(131, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 30, 0, 1),  101, 11,
>IPPROTO_TCP}, 6},
>> +       {{RTE_IPV4(231, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 40, 0, 1),  102, 12,
>IPPROTO_TCP}, 7},
>> +       {{RTE_IPV4(141, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 30, 0, 1),  101, 11,
>IPPROTO_TCP}, 8},
>> +       {{RTE_IPV4(241, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 40, 0, 1),  102, 12,
>IPPROTO_TCP}, 9},
>> +       {{RTE_IPV4(151, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 30, 0, 1),  101, 11,
>IPPROTO_TCP}, 10},
>> +       {{RTE_IPV4(251, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 40, 0, 1),  102, 12,
>IPPROTO_TCP}, 11},
>> +       {{RTE_IPV4(161, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(100, 30, 0, 1),  101, 11,
>IPPROTO_TCP}, 12},
>> +       {{RTE_IPV4(261, 0, 0, 0), RTE_IPV4(200, 40, 0, 1),  102, 12,
>IPPROTO_TCP}, 13},
>
>Am I reading this correctly ? 261.0.0.0 ?

My bad. Do you think it's better to change the address to    198.18.0.0/15 block as it
would be inline with RFC as well as LPM addresses? 

>
>
>--
>David Marchand