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 85A9A46BA1; Thu, 17 Jul 2025 23:03:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49D71402B3; Thu, 17 Jul 2025 23:03:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-yb1-f170.google.com (mail-yb1-f170.google.com [209.85.219.170]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CC164014F for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2025 23:03:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-yb1-f170.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-e8c475ecd5bso1214853276.1 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2025 14:03:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; t=1752786205; x=1753391005; darn=dpdk.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=5KqQ4QfTrO+GqDRV4r0N0Ny1OmTbZxIWzP/CF7d5MbQ=; b=Fc0eMM47jHiwybD880LiJnkhVHFLRIvpaaWcydyoewqz7C3RoDmhgubvoVlOJRgSMN WNZxH7e0Htk/6Fdv2RsLO+h4A1gBw61m1csxbk5uySATgUbJBzNC2IufQKgrqgTOaCW/ d3yFZcPIYAJr0OisfyImuXupwoAUXXqMQGG+M= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1752786205; x=1753391005; h=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=5KqQ4QfTrO+GqDRV4r0N0Ny1OmTbZxIWzP/CF7d5MbQ=; b=Ms0fMLjYY8O8B9t2DJyNY5ZdJ/75OVgb/X+Oi9e/0hnmPVoeaLOAd1+O9DLldWagUc 5WfdkrQkqBWyJs9tuusKxAdLvo50ee6hnAI9TEsHLQxM1E6UXsLE2LnQR2zCK/lxj3UY 8B9arMycgskRuIhAgVIqnNydx7DplpIDx2nESuFfS6ePKuj+zAAu5KJoLX3daKDETHsk xCh74VfIXQLEutwDE1unejcao9RUl9YHtJIB8YElfYxS4SnJALJS3rm4JJtitz71eHW7 dUz3aViwesC/nf/nJvBArsBjxhSgbyCJjPT06Pk6tKGOUiOvuINmKkPOkaJAjuvQcaY6 I1Wg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXLVeeOKWmLnGsu9lCnBIHKSLmPm4Ze8pwiEdbjSX7aAZnC7Tl7jvABm4YUbSVgFRjMpgI=@dpdk.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyRf6cxmGrjhJx4IjswTmKUgflgQuZnTZfa3kj2J5h85BU3NRRy XgmDSl9rt77+mMDXYId18xZSpeguqw8M8bz173Wt/WEZIP8wf3Pkjkf7Z/b8JG8zjIMQ9mjCdGi p1DmQq+UyH+evf79wUj9MALx/m3UkcgF5VNb9JaAb6g== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsuDohef0AUFSVerIYT8Afr2Vv0NVXh7ixblwYtbycy9Sf4rWZPSzYTuRfw0nU VA+wDG5IsvkhagPBY/IIsZkxv3HtaaGdjicrncasMkaWIR9SIecrePUopfpAG7Pq6k8Drm4KXpM xclaxY7758CRD1tRWnIZ7OpP7MGkdIgTdc4B6YLn86GgfKJqc3VmIYK14LQBZttK65MRI5tNPMh rvZwX9n9g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE+tHtN2SW0gIDxK0BxKZ4R1lOjbvoJ6+mzVSebQP/HXD0RXG73JAb8RmKskgQQRKnvtBs1E6WYJ+ZNox5JBr4= X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:3692:b0:719:4cff:16db with SMTP id 00721157ae682-7194cff3ac6mr18942127b3.25.1752786204389; Thu, 17 Jul 2025 14:03:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20250714133014.44597-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35E9FDB8@smartserver.smartshare.dk> In-Reply-To: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35E9FDB8@smartserver.smartshare.dk> From: Dean Marx Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 17:03:13 -0400 X-Gm-Features: Ac12FXwBqYdpyuHu9sdVDOR7IOT1ODZCbKhKj4RuWQz2aTpdgz_724xXfdKv0v8 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: clarify VLAN and QinQ stripping behaviour To: =?UTF-8?Q?Morten_Br=C3=B8rup?= Cc: Bruce Richardson , 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" 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 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 mlx5_core: test_qinq_strip: SKIP reason: Required capability '{NicCapability.RX_OFFLOAD_QINQ_STRIP}' not found. test_vlan_strip (sent packet: Single VLAN): PASS reason: VLAN tags found in packet when should have been stripped: Ether / 802.1q 24:8a:07:aa:83:ee > 0c:42:a1:54:25:86 (0x1c) vlan 1280 / LLC / Raw / Padding test_vlan_strip (sent packet: Stacked VLAN): PASS test_vlan_strip (sent packet: Single S-VLAN): PASS reason: S-VLAN tag stripped from packet test_vlan_strip (sent packet: QinQ): FAIL reason: VLAN tag 0x8100 not found in packet: Ether / Dot1Q / 802.1q (??) vlan ?? / LLC / Raw / Padding Hopefully this can give a clearer picture of the current QinQ/VLAN strip behavior. If anyone wants to take a look at the suite I'll link it here: https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20250717205718.108826-2-dmarx@iol.unh.edu/