From: Akhil Goyal <gakhil@marvell.com>
To: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
Tejasree Kondoj <ktejasree@marvell.com>,
Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Cc: Radu Nicolau <radu.nicolau@intel.com>,
Anoob Joseph <anoobj@marvell.com>,
Ankur Dwivedi <adwivedi@marvell.com>,
Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] mbuf: add packet type for UDP-ESP tunnel packets
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 13:03:39 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <MW2PR18MB22846D52A57BE23C1D0B8A6ED84F9@MW2PR18MB2284.namprd18.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <MW2PR18MB2284E433FBCE872EC2B9164AD8739@MW2PR18MB2284.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
Hi Olivier/ Konstantin,
> > On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 01:47:18PM +0530, Tejasree Kondoj wrote:
> > > Adding new mbuf packet type for UDP encapsulated
> > > ESP packets.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Tejasree Kondoj <ktejasree@marvell.com>
> > > ---
> > > doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_05.rst | 5 +++++
> > > lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_ptype.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_05.rst
> > b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_05.rst
> > > index 5565c7637c..c9e9e2ec22 100644
> > > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_05.rst
> > > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_05.rst
> > > @@ -55,6 +55,11 @@ New Features
> > > Also, make sure to start the actual text at the margin.
> > > =======================================================
> > >
> > > +* **Added new packet type for UDP-ESP packets in mbuf.**
> > > +
> > > + Added new packet type ``RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_ESP_IN_UDP`` which can
> > be
> > > + used to identify UDP encapsulated ESP packets.
> > > +
> > > * **Enhanced ethdev representor syntax.**
> > >
> > > * Introduced representor type of VF, SF and PF.
> > > diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_ptype.h
> > b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_ptype.h
> > > index 17a2dd3576..bf92ce0c1a 100644
> > > --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_ptype.h
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_ptype.h
> > > @@ -491,6 +491,27 @@ extern "C" {
> > > * | 'destination port'=6635>
> > > */
> > > #define RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_MPLS_IN_UDP 0x0000d000
> > > +/**
> > > + * ESP-in-UDP tunneling packet type (RFC 3948).
> > > + *
> > > + * Packet format:
> > > + * <'ether type'=0x0800
> > > + * | 'version'=4, 'protocol'=17
> > > + * | 'destination port'=4500>
> > > + * or,
> > > + * <'ether type'=0x86DD
> > > + * | 'version'=6, 'next header'=17
> > > + * | 'destination port'=4500>
> > > + * or,
> > > + * <'ether type'=0x0800
> > > + * | 'version'=4, 'protocol'=17
> > > + * | 'source port'=4500>
> > > + * or,
> > > + * <'ether type'=0x86DD
> > > + * | 'version'=6, 'next header'=17
> > > + * | 'source port'=4500>
> > > + */
> > > +#define RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_ESP_IN_UDP 0x0000e000
> > > /**
> > > * Mask of tunneling packet types.
> > > */
> >
> > We arrive at the end of the values in packet type tunnel types,
> > and there is another pending patch that needs another tunnel type.
> >
> > As there is already a RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_ESP, what would you think about
> > trying to reuse it, and differentiate IP/ESP from IP/UDP/ESP by using
> > the L4 layer type (unknown vs udp)? Or maybe add RTE_PTYPE_L4_NONE.
> >
> > It is sensible, because it can be considered as an API change for
> > current users of RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_ESP. I don't really know how this
> > type is used by applications.
>
> It is OK to use combination of these two but with an assumption
> that a normal - IP-UDP packet when encrypted will be an IP-ESP packet
> And L4 types are reset from the mbuf->packet_type by the driver.
> @Konstantin Ananyev: Are you OK with this assumption?
>
> And, if we choose this path, then also we may need a macro in this file,
> So that application doesn't have to combine that explicitly for a standard use
> case.
> #define RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_ESP_IN_UDP RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_ESP |
> RTE_PTYPE_L4_UDP
>
> Will this be fine?
>
Can we proceed with this approach?
Regards,
Akhil
> >
> > I think it is time to start thinking about how the packet_type
> > mbuf API can evolve to solve this issue.
> >
> > By the way, the update of *rte_get_ptype_tunnel_name() is missing.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-13 13:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-08 8:17 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/4] add lookaside IPsec UDP encapsulation and transport mode Tejasree Kondoj
2021-04-08 8:17 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/4] crypto/octeontx2: add UDP encapsulation support Tejasree Kondoj
2021-04-08 8:17 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/4] mbuf: add packet type for UDP-ESP tunnel packets Tejasree Kondoj
2021-04-08 8:33 ` Tejasree Kondoj
2021-04-08 11:10 ` Olivier Matz
2021-04-09 10:56 ` [dpdk-dev] [EXT] " Akhil Goyal
2021-04-13 13:03 ` Akhil Goyal [this message]
2021-04-13 15:46 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2021-04-08 8:17 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/4] examples/ipsec-secgw: add UDP encapsulation support Tejasree Kondoj
2021-04-08 10:45 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2021-04-08 8:17 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/4] crypto/octeontx2: support lookaside IPv4 transport mode Tejasree Kondoj
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=MW2PR18MB22846D52A57BE23C1D0B8A6ED84F9@MW2PR18MB2284.namprd18.prod.outlook.com \
--to=gakhil@marvell.com \
--cc=adwivedi@marvell.com \
--cc=anoobj@marvell.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=ktejasree@marvell.com \
--cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=radu.nicolau@intel.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).