From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60D982C72 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 14:57:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Dec 2015 05:57:42 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,369,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="697887181" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.208.61]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 01 Dec 2015 05:57:41 -0800 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 01 Dec 2015 13:57:39 +0025 Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 13:57:39 +0000 From: Bruce Richardson To: Matthew Hall Message-ID: <20151201135739.GA31804@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA674705F1@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <20151201125935.GA20658@mhcomputing.net> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA67470C36@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <20151201134457.GB21396@mhcomputing.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151201134457.GB21396@mhcomputing.net> Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] 2.3 Roadmap 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: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 13:57:48 -0000 On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:44:57AM -0500, Matthew Hall wrote: > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 01:16:47PM +0000, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote: > > True. The goal is to merge the best of the various patches that were > > submitted on this. This could involve changes to IPv6 as well as IPv4. > > > > > > Tim > > If it's possible to fix IPv6 as well this would be good for me. Offering a > large nexthop space on all protocols is very good for BGP / core routing and > security inspection applications. Using this feature, I will be able to detect > interactions with bad subnets and IPs at tremendous speed compared to > competing solutions. > > Matthew. Hi Matthew, Couple of follow-up questions on this: * do you need the exact same number of bits in both implementations? If we support 21 bits of data in IPv6 and 24 in IPv4 is that an issue compared to supporting 21 bits just in both for compatibility. * related to this - how much data are you looking to store in the tables? Thanks, /Bruce