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 ED20B43B4F; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 23:48:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C49F40275; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 23:48:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE68A40263 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 23:48:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F11432009F8; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 17:48:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 19 Feb 2024 17:48:37 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1708382915; x=1708469315; bh=n5jxAlkjwz678HAoH2RW722B6j9Y2cR6+4cr6/tmx+4=; b= 3uR7Ujr+41ef0vG18/BQRC/u2jggZHiMzX+NSfHyLBILubjt6vJw5N4YCmX+TKYs Fj+Vu7uawct+ZeyiATF/gesJmv2bOSkOg2twl7CUlbc0reYHJhxPOQz7SgqHSz4Y JVxpDsXmiFOGAftXp+5wVcN2t6B4csKhN2ffrAVTDmUAAweQ8K8otIuyvEGzyqJl 3IObesbSjotHRrgxpLf7ZVv0rf74ED17PGX+rfN76AzkX+ApmA2/zTFemINrVwHl 4YyjoXPKO9ehuWZkQv8QaSxVFyH3AGCYSY4Evja0RkgGaFo6UdCoghrq6sVUF7z3 I5L5G8p1LvCiKVKWCV8k8A== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1708382915; x= 1708469315; bh=n5jxAlkjwz678HAoH2RW722B6j9Y2cR6+4cr6/tmx+4=; b=d i/c7rEppg/5/MIqcMMt5q+4Rprl3dKekTGwlDMD1SD7ns6RnuqEZBxtlvzAffdqg n3+BhCK/9aOSn0QOry6mKskfsKydnqDU4Wv+e/Vi2htYvvk5uxYVLFn6e0fEKfDg OqlrmG+qpXEQACiuzn4YmAAiQ+PyKSkDnGWXJPYkocLwN/6LymkfxtZcgAXnk0CV kEjy3jNhzFtrvPsQBJ8mk4NCxshXXXMUSh/7OlCN/nyWmfVTnpknyASpd1oOON4u o6sgRpb7AEwF5nnIa91Ghd/ha8vlT0ZBK8ruH7Lg4fq+F9dl11kX/eCPf+aVY/R8 /zJKoqFrV4fwAmYniJ4DQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvledrvdelgddtvdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvfevufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnheptdejieeifeehtdffgfdvleetueeffeehueejgfeuteeftddtieek gfekudehtdfgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 17:48:33 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Gavin Li , Stephen Hemminger Cc: 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 Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 23:48:31 +0100 Message-ID: <4674219.U3zVgo479M@thomas> In-Reply-To: <20240219115017.02497c80@hermes.local> References: <20240112080210.1288356-1-gavinl@nvidia.com> <20240219115017.02497c80@hermes.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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 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?