From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E67C6A0C3F; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:31:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68D431622C0; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:31:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C09341622BF for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:31:54 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1618497113; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=9wUxVHejSuugkn6h5Sfy4l30Kh7EAetgbyNWdNK/osc=; b=LD5KUMfXl76Lo9b45D9wl226GMw43vc3d+n8caE1h0h/9hjz0++ZNuJDm1aLjS5L/nuigp rxujL0eYikCcYB0Z3/+0DOokhWMV3/jJTGtNB8rkxHv978jtfLinMmCQnvRbeltNiiil4y 5UdAAXOqKqImmuKgkbSxFe8sTQ8IMMs= Received: from mail-vk1-f198.google.com (mail-vk1-f198.google.com [209.85.221.198]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-551-kUDZm_niPTqQpAgniquBBg-1; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 10:31:52 -0400 X-MC-Unique: kUDZm_niPTqQpAgniquBBg-1 Received: by mail-vk1-f198.google.com with SMTP id c62-20020a1f4e410000b02901d01fb39972so1317050vkb.13 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 07:31:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9wUxVHejSuugkn6h5Sfy4l30Kh7EAetgbyNWdNK/osc=; b=gvmt3AooR415S93JF3xNMZR3lTcHmAnDAiIVy0JTZYaW7OqoSdBX3SbkjBSJrKgmkk WReNZCNkHPRmRk+ipMmu9D0guqPZ7h5qtqIywIifX1z6HtP3NIwgSMIHvHxBB3LoUxPU CnC+UqPiVaCvZ+Nt35Sio1YZJO0cI7i2irMyONRwcx94E07WI0sCV8GcJ4eji9paIR1M eEj95sB082ngRXaE3Skmv3dLVEzY8i2Id963M6XlVTsQ5zSDtW2WjiVYYluzfW6S0hr5 avJfr1XQRpz+N0u5oXXNB8Pk+5GCy0WNjsO8/WYj7H6lAVYmVzxXdjisYpMBOW3pWOOU D8Xw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5335UE7EAp9cHy1ezKMnVNvRFfin/1kAGUmQxh0iuXl6OWyKGFbv ZXPW0qHZMosZiUXAcBW/Xk+rzBUEl6gV+53cGefVF1aIgTvr0ArT7iEOs+3Wd1LpwFdMI+C/rpe 5CK3jKacK0lwck7+SM+U= X-Received: by 2002:a67:87c1:: with SMTP id j184mr2408618vsd.18.1618497111799; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 07:31:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz7MVn3y9554URmlwOA1gkfUvlAGfu5JXNqPODgN1NBtoRfK4kxHGAPFSVLzWTJAMrL6YsL+AeIQHprKkFmtkA= X-Received: by 2002:a67:87c1:: with SMTP id j184mr2408560vsd.18.1618497111438; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 07:31:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210402105252.1145821-1-conor.walsh@intel.com> <20210406111106.2020555-1-conor.walsh@intel.com> <20210406111106.2020555-2-conor.walsh@intel.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:31:40 +0200 Message-ID: To: "Walsh, Conor" Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "Medvedkin, Vladimir" , Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran , Stephen Hemminger , "Iremonger, Bernard" , "Burakov, Anatoly" , "Mcnamara, John" , dev Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 1/5] examples/l3fwd: fix LPM IPv6 subnets X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 10:44 AM Walsh, Conor wrote= : > > > > > > > > > The IPv6 subnets used were not within the 2001:200::/48 subnet > > > > {{32, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, 48, 0}, > > {{32, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, 48, 1}, > > etc... > > > > Err... all those subnets were exactly =3D=3D 2001:200::/48. > > Is the issue that the example needs *separate* subnets taken from > > within 2001:200::/48 ? > > Hi David, > As it is ATM any IP with that range will match for all the rules for the = 8 ports and the application cannot differentiate between them and it just r= eturns the traffic to sender. > After this change the ports can be individually matched using the smaller= /64 ranges for each port which are still within the given /48 subnet range= (RFC5180). Ok, thanks for confirming, could you update the commitlog to make it clear? > > > > > > > > Changed to 2001:200:0:{0-7}::/64 where 0-7 is the port ID > > > > > > Fixes: 37afe381bde4 ("examples/l3fwd: use reserved IP addresses") > > > > And this looks like a Cc: stable@dpdk.org candidate. > > I can send a v8 and CC stable if you think that=E2=80=99s needed. Yes please. I was waiting to look at the rest of the series, I have some comments that will require a v8 (from my pov). --=20 David Marchand