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 4C4C146BAB; Fri, 18 Jul 2025 15:18:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28FE64069F; Fri, 18 Jul 2025 15:18:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-yw1-f177.google.com (mail-yw1-f177.google.com [209.85.128.177]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DAB04014F for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2025 15:18:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-yw1-f177.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-70e75f30452so14127237b3.2 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2025 06:18:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; t=1752844716; x=1753449516; darn=dpdk.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=SHE6+FJsji4yeni9suIcX1VC/G6r14+uhrcxKouMakM=; b=aeY1Y2wOcwS3wsrAnHcKe0Qeg4aCXyzFaKEDta1lfd8cbbV+1QAeqxMQ6arYvipz5I wj9yZvLgsM9BFq4zU6v9BL2EgSHW9JDqaJ+itkfoUm+g08rJFSrkqzZk9IyXfAY9tExQ 29bpK4EcmEOcWsbg8rhxbekb0YnPcuKa3WP/Y= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1752844716; x=1753449516; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=SHE6+FJsji4yeni9suIcX1VC/G6r14+uhrcxKouMakM=; b=JifCZz0tMuyUvb+FCFZV7VG5R5WlQBwnjRkqw9FoXXQY4rpnQSm61faur5wf3hvmWF RRwva6Ktg45dtOwSWSkI8TdeQ82WUDajFdgHXOhmBgVyLDxMQYmxMQf+w1BUGxrKG5vT IZU6Cuu/uZ6BMWwSIwkJvN/sZN6prYGJhDYVuP0W+HqeXTng8kggCI4mE+0uNO5qZDJr EqDON5k7IUeZfEFlQBYxxmMunO/54AEPMFXMR/JysJcAWbKkl0OAmZSqO/NGQwqbX39h T2l3WTbUOzVZDikPy3p/Vb7Eq8R2VKxt1f/7CmjHpqEjBAlZe3YooRqCN7/6e/cem0iA C+rg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUzHGw7HXrQOYYqwAvybbYqbNQc9SB2yHfwm4DqhuTfdLnm5ttf24wswNg3SAasPkW3Vyo=@dpdk.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yxs9PcyQWpyyvMFXdVqIk7smF6GuoqiFcG5Yxs3rqELiHduYjGe h3mPN8kBZwjRXck2ZcuKY2u9BC5qNy2Kw4B9pd3e/eP/fUEZ/G/4uzW1Q+M+jck027oK6GXYJse sXOSnfYy3Q56QNfMyki6Aq3+9cNsqfPGnNiKvIf4huw== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsiUnp2lxqv5X1BHDThwhvHAriCxKtQj0ot50mvC9APlwsols3KucE31eSZGH8 SnetiYNcp4K9VM7q3aKUCobG5HPqb2Jj1D2GFlQ/g+UrQWf7tyCafTU3E9E9nuqUgIJ2BRIbuNd Wog0TAo9Tfbo6yYuF5yWxF85pqU6hpSUv9wlTNwDDChhhb9hguw6zF5YRKpN58pbWTYZn6KPNbW cw1x03rl3R7Nn0DQ/oo1pc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFVVc38r2rsMANawanvbDacPnBWo5YJX8pcA7PgtI/IcmBYuUFd6L5r6tYQk0SCa3viZZfA6qZNXnBn+VXoMfM= X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:4a07:b0:712:e082:42ee with SMTP id 00721157ae682-7183515f795mr144636327b3.30.1752844715589; Fri, 18 Jul 2025 06:18:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20250714133014.44597-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35E9FDB8@smartserver.smartshare.dk> In-Reply-To: From: Dean Marx Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2025 09:18:24 -0400 X-Gm-Features: Ac12FXy1VExlGy2Nd3tSkxv9Mguy3QDKng6aDGnY9EzAjVxZzshTbrVOnMDpBIg Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: clarify VLAN and QinQ stripping behaviour To: Bruce Richardson Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Morten_Br=C3=B8rup?= , dev@dpdk.org, Dengdui Huang , Vladimir Medvedkin , techboard@dpdk.org, Patrick Robb , fengchengwen , stephen@networkplumber.org, jasvinder.singh@intel.com, thomas@monjalon.net, aman.deep.singh@intel.com, lihuisong@huawei.com, liuyonglong@huawei.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 4:23=E2=80=AFAM Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 05:03:13PM -0400, Dean Marx wrote: > > I've created a v1 of a QinQ test suite around the set of test cases > > discussed earlier (which is not set in stone, and I expect it to > > change significantly across many future versions.) The PASS/FAIL > > values can be mostly disregarded in the context of this conversation, > > but I've added logging to explain which packets are sent, and what > > happened upon reception, which I hope will be more informative. After > > running on mlx5/i40e drivers, I got the following results: > > > > test_vlan_strip: QinQ strip OFF and VLAN strip ON > > test_qinq_strip: QinQ strip ON and VLAN strip ON > > > > i40e: > > test_qinq_strip (sent packet: Single VLAN): FAIL > > reason: VLAN tags found in packet when should have been > > stripped: Ether / Dot1Q / 802.1q (0x1c) vlan 1280 / LLC / Raw / > > Padding > > test_qinq_strip (sent packet: Stacked VLAN): FAIL > > reason: Expected one VLAN tag but found 2: Ether / Dot1Q / Dot1Q > > / 802.1q (0x1c) vlan 1280 / LLC / Raw / Padding > > test_qinq_strip (sent packet: Single S-VLAN): FAIL > > reason: VLAN tags found in packet when should have been > > stripped: Ether / Dot1Q / 802.1q (??) vlan ?? / LLC / Raw / Padding > > test_qinq_strip (sent packet: QinQ): FAIL > > reason: VLAN tags found in packet when should have been > > stripped: Ether / Dot1Q / Dot1AD / 802.1q (0x1c) vlan 1280 / LLC / Raw > > / Padding > > test_vlan_strip (sent packet: Single VLAN): PASS > > reason: VLAN tag stripped from packet > > test_vlan_strip (sent packet: Stacked VLAN): PASS > > reason: Received packet had outer VLAN stripped, with inner VLAN = intact > > test_vlan_strip (sent packet: Single S-VLAN): PASS > > reason: S-VLAN tag stripped from packet > > test_vlan_strip (sent packet: QinQ): FAIL > > reason: Neither tag stripped > > > > Can you confirm exactly what is being sent in each case for the ethertype > of the VLAN tag? When you say single and stacked VLANs, that is VLANs wit= h > 0x8100 type, correct? Is single S-VLAN a tag with ethertype 0x88a8, and > QinQ packet a packet with one 0x88a8 and one 0x8100? No other type option= s, > e.g. 0x9100 were checked, right? > > /Bruce That's correct, single VLAN is one 0x8100 tag, stacked is two, single S-VLAN is one 0x88a8, and QinQ is 0x88a8 and 0x8100. No other types were tested in the stripping case