On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 12:30 PM Alexander Kozyrev <akozyrev@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> >>And we definitely need RTE_PTYPE_INNER_L4_ESP for ESP over UDP support.
> >Isn't this already taken care when mbuf->packet_type =
> >(RTE_PTYPE_L4_UDP | RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_ESP) ?
>
> This is ambigous. And both UDP and ESP are L4 headers,
> which can lead to the undefined behavior when we specify both of them.
> They are mutually exclusive in our hardware, for example.
> That is why we have RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_MPLS_IN_GRE and
> RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_MPLS_IN_UDP for MPLS.
> We could go and indroduce RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_ESP_IN_UDP
> to resolve the ambiguity, or have RTE_PTYPE_INNER_L4_ESP.
> I choose the second variant to have a generic way for
> ESP packets over any type of encapsulation.
The choice sounds reasonable to me.

>