From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <medvedkinv@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-la0-f50.google.com (mail-la0-f50.google.com
 [209.85.215.50]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30AF05A64
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue,  4 Aug 2015 23:40:37 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by labow3 with SMTP id ow3so16395372lab.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 14:40:36 -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:content-type;
 bh=0oDYiqFcXxyR/fDA4OId26d1P4/kBbitTjouabO3DOE=;
 b=ziHFlkM3snQtArF8NO+og1zV/mHYA+dSPBXGatA49PCXsUKvg+5h1kW5dWq8ugNsan
 At7kK7/kleHcXST0/Hnhn8GLvbYyMnqtRPBLnGDMoONfQbLoiUEN6hWUHX0T7xOjH1l/
 CAaZi3TINXKFbEtrzDa/MjbkqcGWtmGk+CyX+cm2Lvz68eMxEnQ2t6K7j9uPDzW1eMvK
 DX+Dm1MSW55JiBcbE5GysT/y0yIgTh5FbhXmYLlQrdOg9QDw2C24683JDdxkNClgxjcN
 gELiKOxyElmDmDBJhBtJJLhLwonivqzxRAJkRraIFq1+VswcnoyY6bdqf7Sql/FU1hWL
 f3OA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.185.66 with SMTP id fa2mr6465694lbc.42.1438724436774;
 Tue, 04 Aug 2015 14:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.10.229 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPrTskjdDc1GPUUSCRjG1r+TjodXXd2+=2J7M6c=jV8+-kpRhA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPrTskjdDc1GPUUSCRjG1r+TjodXXd2+=2J7M6c=jV8+-kpRhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 00:40:36 +0300
Message-ID: <CANDrEHmcFirq1CHS7TTxZLRjaMt9sUuGBBOmWNjH_B9XjspVqA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vladimir Medvedkin <medvedkinv@gmail.com>
To: Kamraan Nasim <knasim@sidebandnetworks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, Jun Du <jdu@sidebandnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Changes to 5tuple IPv4 filters in dpdk v2.0
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 21:40:37 -0000

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
>