[dpdk-dev] Changes to 5tuple IPv4 filters in dpdk v2.0

[dpdk-dev] Changes to 5tuple IPv4 filters in dpdk v2.0

[Kamraan Nasim]

Hi DPDK community,

I've been using DPDK v1.7 and v1.8 for the past year. On updating to
v2.0.0,  I see that *rte_5tuple_filter* has been deprecated as well as the
associated install/remove call,* rte_eth_dev_add_5tuple_filter()*

I now see that rte_eth_ntuple_filter has been added in place.

1) Is there a specific reason for removing backward compatibility? As in is
there a known issue with rte_5tuple_filter infra that was discovered in
v2.0?


2) One limitation of rte_5tuple_filter was that it could not be used to
filter /24 or /16 ip addresses(subnet filtering). I now see that the
src_ip_mask and dst_ip_mask is 32 bits and a separate
RTE_NTUPLE_FLAGS_SRC_IP
<http://dpdk.org/doc/api/rte__eth__ctrl_8h.html#aff1204ca0b33628610956f840dd9b206>
  has been introduced. Does this imply that we NOW support subnet
filtering(use mask for wildcard masking)?


Any help or pointers on the subject will be greatly appreciated!!!


Thanks,
Kam

Re: [dpdk-dev] Changes to 5tuple IPv4 filters in dpdk v2.0

[Vladimir Medvedkin]

Hi Kam,

1) The reason is discussed in
http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-September/005179.html
2) No, it's still not supported (on current NICs). At the moment ntuple is
supported only by igb and ixgbe. If you look at
drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c you can see ntuple_filter_to_5tuple
function which translate rte_eth_ntuple_filter to ixgbe_5tuple_filter_info,
so mask can be either UINT32_MAX or 0. It's hardware limitation (see 82599
datasheet 7.1.2.5 L3/L4 5-tuple Filters).

Regards,
Vladimir

2015-08-04 23:44 GMT+03:00 Kamraan Nasim <knasim@sidebandnetworks.com>:

> Hi DPDK community,
>
> I've been using DPDK v1.7 and v1.8 for the past year. On updating to
> v2.0.0,  I see that *rte_5tuple_filter* has been deprecated as well as the
> associated install/remove call,* rte_eth_dev_add_5tuple_filter()*
>
> I now see that rte_eth_ntuple_filter has been added in place.
>
> 1) Is there a specific reason for removing backward compatibility? As in is
> there a known issue with rte_5tuple_filter infra that was discovered in
> v2.0?
>
>
> 2) One limitation of rte_5tuple_filter was that it could not be used to
> filter /24 or /16 ip addresses(subnet filtering). I now see that the
> src_ip_mask and dst_ip_mask is 32 bits and a separate
> RTE_NTUPLE_FLAGS_SRC_IP
> <
> http://dpdk.org/doc/api/rte__eth__ctrl_8h.html#aff1204ca0b33628610956f840dd9b206
> >
>   has been introduced. Does this imply that we NOW support subnet
> filtering(use mask for wildcard masking)?
>
>
> Any help or pointers on the subject will be greatly appreciated!!!
>
>
> Thanks,
> Kam
>

Re: [dpdk-dev] Changes to 5tuple IPv4 filters in dpdk v2.0

[Kamraan Nasim]

Hi Vladimir,

Thank you for the link. Seems to simply be an abstraction over the existing
filters so it is safe for me to upgrade to v2.0 :)

Since we are on the subject, are you aware of any filters on 82599 or
Fortville that may provide subnet filtering(I can specify something like
192.168.0.0/16 instead of host addresses)?  What about flow director
filters?


--Kam

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Vladimir Medvedkin <medvedkinv@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Kam,
>
> 1) The reason is discussed in
> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-September/005179.html
> 2) No, it's still not supported (on current NICs). At the moment ntuple is
> supported only by igb and ixgbe. If you look at
> drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c you can see ntuple_filter_to_5tuple
> function which translate rte_eth_ntuple_filter to ixgbe_5tuple_filter_info,
> so mask can be either UINT32_MAX or 0. It's hardware limitation (see 82599
> datasheet 7.1.2.5 L3/L4 5-tuple Filters).
>
> Regards,
> Vladimir
>
> 2015-08-04 23:44 GMT+03:00 Kamraan Nasim <knasim@sidebandnetworks.com>:
>
>> Hi DPDK community,
>>
>> I've been using DPDK v1.7 and v1.8 for the past year. On updating to
>> v2.0.0,  I see that *rte_5tuple_filter* has been deprecated as well as the
>> associated install/remove call,* rte_eth_dev_add_5tuple_filter()*
>>
>> I now see that rte_eth_ntuple_filter has been added in place.
>>
>> 1) Is there a specific reason for removing backward compatibility? As in
>> is
>> there a known issue with rte_5tuple_filter infra that was discovered in
>> v2.0?
>>
>>
>> 2) One limitation of rte_5tuple_filter was that it could not be used to
>> filter /24 or /16 ip addresses(subnet filtering). I now see that the
>> src_ip_mask and dst_ip_mask is 32 bits and a separate
>> RTE_NTUPLE_FLAGS_SRC_IP
>> <
>> http://dpdk.org/doc/api/rte__eth__ctrl_8h.html#aff1204ca0b33628610956f840dd9b206
>> >
>>   has been introduced. Does this imply that we NOW support subnet
>> filtering(use mask for wildcard masking)?
>>
>>
>> Any help or pointers on the subject will be greatly appreciated!!!
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kam
>>
>
>

Re: [dpdk-dev] Changes to 5tuple IPv4 filters in dpdk v2.0

[Vladimir Medvedkin]

Hi Kam,

Flow director can filter by src/dst prefix, but the src/dst prefix length
is global for all rules. So, if you decide to specify /16 dst network, all
rules will have /16 prefix length for dst address.

Regards,
Vladimir

2015-08-05 17:53 GMT+03:00 Kamraan Nasim <knasim@sidebandnetworks.com>:

> Hi Vladimir,
>
> Thank you for the link. Seems to simply be an abstraction over the
> existing filters so it is safe for me to upgrade to v2.0 :)
>
> Since we are on the subject, are you aware of any filters on 82599 or
> Fortville that may provide subnet filtering(I can specify something like
> 192.168.0.0/16 instead of host addresses)?  What about flow director
> filters?
>
>
> --Kam
>
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Vladimir Medvedkin <medvedkinv@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Kam,
>>
>> 1) The reason is discussed in
>> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-September/005179.html
>> 2) No, it's still not supported (on current NICs). At the moment ntuple
>> is supported only by igb and ixgbe. If you look at
>> drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c you can see ntuple_filter_to_5tuple
>> function which translate rte_eth_ntuple_filter to ixgbe_5tuple_filter_info,
>> so mask can be either UINT32_MAX or 0. It's hardware limitation (see 82599
>> datasheet 7.1.2.5 L3/L4 5-tuple Filters).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Vladimir
>>
>> 2015-08-04 23:44 GMT+03:00 Kamraan Nasim <knasim@sidebandnetworks.com>:
>>
>>> Hi DPDK community,
>>>
>>> I've been using DPDK v1.7 and v1.8 for the past year. On updating to
>>> v2.0.0,  I see that *rte_5tuple_filter* has been deprecated as well as
>>> the
>>> associated install/remove call,* rte_eth_dev_add_5tuple_filter()*
>>>
>>> I now see that rte_eth_ntuple_filter has been added in place.
>>>
>>> 1) Is there a specific reason for removing backward compatibility? As in
>>> is
>>> there a known issue with rte_5tuple_filter infra that was discovered in
>>> v2.0?
>>>
>>>
>>> 2) One limitation of rte_5tuple_filter was that it could not be used to
>>> filter /24 or /16 ip addresses(subnet filtering). I now see that the
>>> src_ip_mask and dst_ip_mask is 32 bits and a separate
>>> RTE_NTUPLE_FLAGS_SRC_IP
>>> <
>>> http://dpdk.org/doc/api/rte__eth__ctrl_8h.html#aff1204ca0b33628610956f840dd9b206
>>> >
>>>   has been introduced. Does this imply that we NOW support subnet
>>> filtering(use mask for wildcard masking)?
>>>
>>>
>>> Any help or pointers on the subject will be greatly appreciated!!!
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kam
>>>
>>
>>
>