DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>
To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, mb@smartsharesystems.com
Cc: dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>, Andrzej Ostruszka <aostruszka@marvell.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/3] introduce IF proxy library
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 16:57:59 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALBAE1OLEbj+3=cZ+oOfm7Qbqot1hh-AegZoHduOifT-t7crkg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200115101537.GA1666@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 3:45 PM Bruce Richardson
<bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 06:38:37PM +0100, Andrzej Ostruszka wrote:
> > On 1/14/20 4:16 PM, Morten Brřrup wrote:
> > > Andrzej,
> >
> > Hello Morten
> >
> > > Basically you are adding a very small subset of the Linux IP stack> to interface with DPDK applications via callbacks.
> >
> > Yes, at the moment this is limited - we'd prefer first to solicit
> > some input from community.
> >
> > > The library also seems to support interfacing to the route table,
> > > so it is not "interface proxy" but "IP stack proxy".
> >
> > True, to some extent - for example you can bring the interface up and
> > down which has nothing to do with IP stack.  As for the name of the
> > library - that is actually part where we are completely open.  The proxy
> > represents port (thus the name) but that is not all, so any better name
> > proposals are welcome.
> >
> > > You already mention ARP table as future work. How about namespaces,
> > > ip tables, and other advanced features... I foresee the Devil in the
> > > details for any real use case.
> >
> > Right now I don't know what other things are needed.  This idea is still
> > early.  However imagine you'd like to use DPDK to speed up packet
> > processing of IP stack - would you like to implement all the protocols
> > that are needed?  Or just let the system handle the control path and
> > handle the data path and sniff the control params from the system.
> >
> Like Morten, I'd be a bit concerned at the possible scope of the work if we
> start pulling in functionality from the IP stack like ARP etc. To avoid
> this becoming a massive effort, how useful would it be if we just limited
> the scope to physical NIC setup only, and did not do anything above the l2
> layer?

Like the IPSec library, Marvell would like to add support for
additional protocols
(probably begin with IPv4, UDP) to DPDK. One of our concerns was the control
plane interface for those protocols for effective use in DPDK. Since DPDK has
support for FreeBSD and Windows OS now, We can not use NETLINK directly
in the library. This is the sole intention of this library was the
abstract control
plane interface. We can start with only the L2 layer for now
and but in the future when we add the L3 layer then we need to add the
additional items.
Suggestions?

  reply	other threads:[~2020-01-15 11:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-01-14 14:25 Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-01-14 14:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 1/3] lib: introduce IF proxy library (API) Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-01-14 14:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 2/3] if_proxy: add preliminary Linux implementation Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-01-14 14:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 3/3] if_proxy: add example, test and documentation Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-01-14 15:16 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/3] introduce IF proxy library Morten Brørup
2020-01-14 17:38   ` Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-01-15 10:15     ` Bruce Richardson
2020-01-15 11:27       ` Jerin Jacob [this message]
2020-01-15 12:28       ` Morten Brørup
2020-01-15 12:57         ` Jerin Jacob
2020-01-15 15:30           ` Morten Brørup
2020-01-15 16:04             ` Jerin Jacob
2020-01-15 18:15               ` Morten Brørup
2020-01-16  7:15                 ` Jerin Jacob
2020-01-16  9:11                   ` Morten Brørup
2020-01-16  9:09                 ` Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-01-16  9:30                   ` Morten Brørup
2020-01-16 10:42                     ` Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-01-16 10:58                       ` Morten Brørup
2020-01-16 12:06                         ` Andrzej Ostruszka
2020-01-15 14:09         ` Bruce Richardson

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CALBAE1OLEbj+3=cZ+oOfm7Qbqot1hh-AegZoHduOifT-t7crkg@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=jerinjacobk@gmail.com \
    --cc=aostruszka@marvell.com \
    --cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).