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

[Thomas Monjalon]

11/11/2019 08:46, 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? 

After 9 months, I think you could send a v2 ;)