[dpdk-dev] [dpdk-dev v2 1/2] ethdev: add new tunnel type for ecpri

[Thomas Monjalon]

07/01/2021 16:24, Zhang, Qi Z:
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
> > 07/01/2021 13:47, Zhang, Qi Z:
> > > From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
> > > > 07/01/2021 10:32, Guo, Jia:
> > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
> > > > > > 24/12/2020 07:59, Jeff Guo:
> > > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
> > > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
> > > > > > > @@ -1219,6 +1219,7 @@ enum rte_eth_tunnel_type {
> > > > > > >  	RTE_TUNNEL_TYPE_IP_IN_GRE,
> > > > > > >  	RTE_L2_TUNNEL_TYPE_E_TAG,
> > > > > > >  	RTE_TUNNEL_TYPE_VXLAN_GPE,
> > > > > > > +	RTE_TUNNEL_TYPE_ECPRI,
> > > > > > >  	RTE_TUNNEL_TYPE_MAX,
> > > > > > >  };
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We tried to remove all these legacy API in DPDK 20.11.
> > > > > > Andrew decided to not remove this one because it is not yet
> > > > > > completely replaced by rte_flow in all drivers.
> > > > > > However, I am against continuing to update this API.
> > > > > > The opposite work should be done: migrate to rte_flow.
> > > > >
> > > > > Agree but seems that the legacy api and driver legacy
> > > > > implementation still keep in this release, and there is no a
> > > > > general way to replace the legacy by rte_flow right now.
> > > >
> > > > I think rte_flow is a complete replacement with more features.
> > >
> > > Thomas, I may not agree with this.
> > >
> > > Actually the "enum rte_eth_tunnel_type" is used by
> > > rte_eth_dev_udp_tunnel_port_add A packet with specific dst udp port
> > > will be recognized as a specific tunnel packet type (e.g. vxlan, vxlan-gpe,
> > ecpri...) In Intel NIC, the API actually changes the configuration of the packet
> > parser in HW but not add a filter rule and I guess all other devices may enable it
> > in a similar way.
> > > so naturally it should be a device (port) level configuration but not a rte_flow
> > rule for match, encap, decap...
> > 
> > I don't understand how it helps to identify an UDP port if there is no rule for
> > this tunnel.
> > What is the usage?
> 
> Yes, in general It is a rule, it matches a udp packet's dst port and the action is "now the packet is identified as vxlan packet" then all other rte_flow rules that match for a vlxan as pattern will take effect.  but somehow, I think they are not rules in the same domain, just like we have dedicate API for mac/vlan filter, we'd better have a dedicate API for this also. ( RFC for Vxlan explains why we need this. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7348).
> 
> "Destination Port: IANA has assigned the value 4789 for the
> VXLAN UDP port, and this value SHOULD be used by default as the
> destination UDP port.  Some early implementations of VXLAN have
> used other values for the destination port.  To enable
> interoperability with these implementations, the destination
> port SHOULD be configurable."

Yes the port number is free.
But isn't it more natural to specify this port number
as part of the rte_flow rule?