From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vk0-f50.google.com (mail-vk0-f50.google.com [209.85.213.50]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E44558A for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:29:29 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-vk0-f50.google.com with SMTP id e185so66184678vkb.1 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 08:29:29 -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=9yuheb2JlIiIXes3zccXlAsK0at8BzRJdC9nO5MSFPg=; b=U+vE6vDFFpqrngdsE664LW8e+pLv4IHCUZHdCYvyYmN+7dEyQiaydqxgurRa5hUpXE xadbQ1X+J6u6puaWMZTG2csqG5tmSfzIHDPI8LXIlQ/dPnYGJKvJdj+hruTGjsPXhjSg 25ar2aRh5jhkKtpeVi3n/kTrxOTpxo7W5Zouq+4j29fAo69jdaqdeRTM0BCvt8ShBHk6 lKRl3nDU1yoBBu68cxq7KGrzFR9Or8iBg5fNtjjOM77Gj9nVRfNjR2aN+ZrDEgQsKX4X szALRYfOtGxcdhPyiGMvF3q6BW2gwrI/D6tMvtlCFOtRa1gD+UEUS0F+ziU17IXwCyUm eQCQ== 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=9yuheb2JlIiIXes3zccXlAsK0at8BzRJdC9nO5MSFPg=; b=UJFmvgu7K9E4wt50y+6cX8xDaNhmPyW2zZqEV/3ZlVQ0kJ89QIeuJjfgJxdnLSz+ML 29DJq5qx6zI9iDCC/ZnDQbA8qmnS6BolmPOWuKtqolKIrbiDdlURSc6zTMHJwcePjz+2 ehvU3qlkaRUIz2SPfpFFuxlOR3i/PgdQqKFfMfT0uCTocaZLBJzgto16i0TPeUSi2wv8 b8gSaHMx2b/vCQhxBp52rbD/Vg+/y0yy+yS5ZxaEdeyxg7XB8Q0rlZHkDMY9XcAQRTXQ 1KuLyTv4TC0YLRPwcAWQW3WxPU36hNW2BZFM9bTtXiiPRPBkxnz3bzJ9HfcT1bacVXsO FhNw== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIwhrBvxpmFaWmFK88NapkvDf34rjOyPcl9tHgzmAePkjUhxrbX9sZNM9pweYVDpCBFfAVffxhg5DMEkg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.3.80 with SMTP id 77mr5205887vkd.17.1458142169413; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 08:29:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.176.1.8 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 08:29:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6A0DE07E22DDAD4C9103DF62FEBC09090343BA89@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <6A0DE07E22DDAD4C9103DF62FEBC09090343BA89@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:59:29 +0530 Message-ID: From: bharath paulraj To: "Lu, Wenzhuo" Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" 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: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 15:29:30 -0000 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