From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAE8143B50; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 00:45:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AD66402CE; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 00:45:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-pl1-f182.google.com (mail-pl1-f182.google.com [209.85.214.182]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE87A402C0 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 00:44:59 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-pl1-f182.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1d932f6ccfaso39708825ad.1 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 15:44:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1708386299; x=1708991099; darn=dpdk.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=zWraxZRt54n6ALMH7ATCc1XHz8O/fgVWb0cQY4O4Srk=; b=qOiIay2VzkHTuU0X4cZufE4SKcqdVLlMJOTlMBNu5FPTCeBQsR+Za1GL5xRmASsCeo BYU6LMYkAthlaxVnkkHPQBrSo/6wKSW/ejL+/VfceiPtMbM4bMlxk8tGvxWT1z/DBUoA PcqAxYslKJnIAtNvbGBCcnnpa84APB35PvhFnuWclO2lcCVODVrT4MI7oYaEiUbF8Kqr HMLdRCj6phqaalrBL14E0tl1ypW2MKQRgDA9s9hi02GHp2ng5D1HkLFv6ZDtIVjq+gz0 UZ3Wu43OeuBuF/jGc8bCk22dvINc6bJzAoomF2O+8xz/nZ39BHvltJKiUSCGqB7+fNJj ZpOQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1708386299; x=1708991099; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=zWraxZRt54n6ALMH7ATCc1XHz8O/fgVWb0cQY4O4Srk=; b=WczLATyvWqbqQOKx760Or3F06vNtA2pL3ywLzoJ7K/++M0GzOwhWRxW3HIrv5+QJIF 0AEvUp9N6mWBV7k3o3eurdToE31gM2H8WkFPzg5/yoIFzY1Z2O2hUqn+xJbh37x+b0Ao EUqv9kMXe2/oN3Wcna7pyRpF54KZes5Oi+BnfcqDaol3UW6TiKHS7iXdiCVJFZ9VCFGt VJ4yWUMwF/c8D08kBMZDe+o/H17Mb2KUfGC6k3DwZWpPUCIul+fQroxvxGdai5TiGjND qV9ypuC22q5iKrKNtztFEJNHCt1VPgppuo/XmOvQm1Tk7aZczNpSlzIRW/5Zd8m9J+LV J/jg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXqGS6vMv8qlAleGF4BTt32QhpP2e6L6nVLWUJORJenGoy5Vfjt/DiL2UxlpkqjhXSR5QwnBHin91Hk+nE= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwjQmcOY4SyB4vV+QUqDpn2JJzLPipqtu2RiHZpGv7Z8aFsPtWC wleCpTmOLahuTg3WFZQGP5p4ON8p1DOgIg6sm5+melvbijMO8rdFfJMt277RK/E= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IG+i6384WwSUYza+CawncTq/C7lY40su0Q3HUWwxW58hsuw8xlGbDjHflWyZv68obe5V6USQQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:d304:b0:1dc:7b6:86a3 with SMTP id b4-20020a170902d30400b001dc07b686a3mr1792574plc.49.1708386298783; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 15:44:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.local (204-195-123-141.wavecable.com. [204.195.123.141]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p3-20020a170902c70300b001db86c48221sm4947247plp.22.2024.02.19.15.44.58 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 19 Feb 2024 15:44:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 15:44:56 -0800 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Gavin Li , dev@dpdk.org, orika@nvidia.com, aman.deep.singh@intel.com, yuying.zhang@intel.com, dsosnowski@nvidia.com, viacheslavo@nvidia.com, suanmingm@nvidia.com, matan@nvidia.com, jiaweiw@nvidia.com, rasland@nvidia.com Subject: Re: [V1 0/5] support VXLAN-GPE header fields(flags, rsvd0 and rsvd1) matching Message-ID: <20240219154456.556e3967@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: <4674219.U3zVgo479M@thomas> References: <20240112080210.1288356-1-gavinl@nvidia.com> <20240219115017.02497c80@hermes.local> <4674219.U3zVgo479M@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 23:48:31 +0100 Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 19/02/2024 20:50, Stephen Hemminger: > > On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 10:02:05 +0200 > > Gavin Li wrote: > > > > > Previously, VXLAN-GPE in DPDK only supports VNI and next protocol header > > > fields. This patch series add support for flags and reserved field 0 and > > > 1. > > > > > > Below is the VXLAN-GPE header defined in the lasted draft. > > > 0 1 2 3 > > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > |R|R|Ver|I|P|B|O| Reserved |Next Protocol | > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > | VXLAN Network Identifier (VNI) | Reserved | > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > > Would recommend against implementing anything in a draft RFC. > > Things can change. Learned the hard way when doing VXLAN driver for Linux. > > The hardcoded port value in the Linux VXLAN driver is wrong because it matched > > the draft RFC (got changed in final version). Because of strict compatibility > > requirements the Linux driver could not be changed to the correct value. > > The problem is that standardization may be slow. > Would it be acceptable without any compatibility guarantee? Never mark it stable until RFC is done.