From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vk0-f41.google.com (mail-vk0-f41.google.com [209.85.213.41]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E2DE5685 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 07:42:26 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-vk0-f41.google.com with SMTP id c3so90623648vkb.3 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:42:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=lDILc5LB/012BfF3yFC9zrwvTCDzBMGgWaf2LAUgbWM=; b=exjC+LHswdFG/Bti6HClzivGPtq4KlgPzVRqaT4ZSmdTOkNst7CR9MdVOzeuw2xrWo TNYjnMWYwtiSs0a+yGhyuyPCZsiW9kF3jJh+qTNWHV6WtpbLvdWHuj5Eo8ugP8dtiLkK XU/w2dqpE5Fit52Q6P/J+DOLTQpXiDteMFX514Hb20PNyBi20JGsxWt3E9dd6R54lbOW 1NQBiKiwwJrmNX6A0kOUZugRx28S0jVUxp5IY5XltcGDYD0kPikWxtyuWAcYAakZ1pvC p88bcZN6QtxXtoBFVVMIIsIYzCL281IZE3LFuje45Qo2EglIX7RNYu1uy3E3I8Ljhndd TnDg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=lDILc5LB/012BfF3yFC9zrwvTCDzBMGgWaf2LAUgbWM=; b=UOuJPklroFV94cH3Tp7IezeYXbEz6O8bptmOnqudVnDZ62hEIuxab+x2iOKQWdf290 EMRcnkDhbrEsUIwVq4TnDryWceJTgLO+KVCONzBsNxCHXCaLqpiLf0eJqKgKCXyoIa8X gfaVHKlaR6n6eLmW29dRma4wBPPdrUET2c1qsTsMMyZHf7Rnp63ZzGaH93bLxWnndXYU j4Apej8CyIyleVlcWW8huStOKIaY9GJwM3zh/7VlMG3wts3ZopXCfwzyIgYYslmkCmF4 b/475kP6dggFdNeA/pBxVEOCWmas8EgHUPRZs/XtqHt40PEqCSiEkYl0qecRydL8yqUa xm3g== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJrm1rA81d63NBnPY0rzI+ITXeW9zd7OdlgGE/d2vokyUBGM4OMSSvds+RiyriB5Hc7SGIdZpnxjpvP6Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.49.23 with SMTP id x23mr9854255vkx.0.1458196945703; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:42:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.176.1.8 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:42:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <6A0DE07E22DDAD4C9103DF62FEBC09090343BA89@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:12:25 +0530 Message-ID: From: bharath paulraj To: "Rose, Gregory V" Cc: "Zhang, Helin" , "Lu, Wenzhuo" , "Rowden, Aaron F" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Qiu, Michael" , "Jayakumar, Muthurajan" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Reg: promiscuous mode on VF X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 06:42:26 -0000 Hi Lu, Helin, Greg, Many thanks for your response, which is really quick. Now, If I want to implement L2 bridging with Intel virtualization technologies, using 82599 controller, then Michael is my only hope, as getting the new kernel versions and upstream support will take considerable amount of time. Michael, Could you please share your experience on L2 bridging using Intel virtualization technologies. Thanks, Bharath On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Rose, Gregory V wrote: > Intel has not supported promiscuous mode for virtual functions due to the > security concerns mentioned below. > > There will be upstream support in an upcoming Linux kernel for setting > virtual functions as "trusted" and when that is available then Intel will > allow virtual functions to enter unicast promiscuous mode on those Ethernet > controllers that support promiscuous mode for virtual functions in the > HW/FW. Be aware that not all Intel Ethernet controllers have support for > unicast promiscuous mode for virtual functions. The only currently > released product that does is the X710/XL710. > > The key take away is that unicast promiscuous mode for X710/XL710 virtual > functions requires Linux kernel support, iproute2 package support and > driver support. Only when all three of these are in place will the feature > work. > > Thanks, > > - Greg > > -----Original Message----- > From: Zhang, Helin > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 9:04 AM > To: bharath paulraj ; Lu, Wenzhuo < > wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>; Rowden, Aaron F ; Rose, > Gregory V > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Qiu, Michael ; Jayakumar, > Muthurajan > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] Reg: promiscuous mode on VF > > Hi Bharath > > For your question of "why intel does not support unicast promiscuos > mode?", I'd ask Aaron or Greg to give answers. > Thank you very much! > > Regards, > Helin > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of bharath paulraj > > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 11:29 PM > > To: Lu, Wenzhuo > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Reg: promiscuous mode on VF > > > > Hi Lu, > > > > Many thanks for your response. Again I have few more queries. > > If VF unicast promiscuous mode is not supported then can't we > > implement a Layer 2 bridging functionality using intel virtualization > > technologies? Or Is there any other way, say tweeking some hardware > > registers or drivers, which may help us in implementing Layer 2 bridging. > > Also I would like to know, why intel does not support unicast promiscuos > mode? > > It could have been optional register settings and user should have had > > a previleage to set or unset it. Besides, security reasons, is there > > any other big reason why Intel does not support this? > > > > Thanks, > > Bharath Paulraj > > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 6:15 AM, Lu, Wenzhuo > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Bharath, > > > > > > > 2) Is the above supported for 82599 controller? If it is > > > > supported > > > in the NIC, > > > > please provide the steps to enable. > > > Talking about 82599, VF unicast promiscuous mode is not supported. > > > Only broadcast and multicast can be supported. > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Bharath Paulraj > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Bharath > -- Regards, Bharath