From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f42.google.com (mail-it0-f42.google.com [209.85.214.42]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0850E2C38 for ; Tue, 9 May 2017 06:11:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-it0-f42.google.com with SMTP id g126so2256052ith.0 for ; Mon, 08 May 2017 21:11:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=DK0hgtZmwmpoQ/h2pMCQ6OPuLejAJRR+sNplFglVaYo=; b=ndBeHy7CY1zROO3K6I4864peKUrAorAFpRsmXEVqhUe8NlrbusSNSixGteolUKY1Bs mkahFIu9wpLWe9HV0eTKTvtSUnLE0LrwU22wUr/pLEMuDaiVzVag40u/gnLbPHB8I/zx +5PRQ3sPNGY0BZhiX8hj/oPfUZ5+cQoXRyM02Qquqwqud/l1p3BmKgjGqLZtice89o5g LIczZ0MIj5KBmH6OILGFlvJvVuZijxOWI4MDjPKdBjFO38P62X0bR56Snh3vma8Imxbl Dic7cGrgJCMbCyykfjDfjyp7Tm6CoFR5T0aDoA8RPrebSAcWmqt3eNhhxVYbPDvvVH25 3siw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=DK0hgtZmwmpoQ/h2pMCQ6OPuLejAJRR+sNplFglVaYo=; b=QES9E3WYYVInvy8AFREsHxnRnjvz55TJpIovxvrU6mIOtcHl1E+DSiy1aD9872iqmN OnapdYKLZrFr1OB0HFP9yA6urNYgRgOmaGAL1jOBTgOfEPTA/rz1sBfwNkU3tFIbwtwH hnhQYDy9JM15XmuYtvyQxsg/3kTTh1BPtkIMpKe2nm3JKSblTBD0RR1QPBX5xJ08yt4V iD5nC2jGRx14Eqv4pIjvi0c/n58zeOVFkMFYKhMqi3yccUNfLpxdpA9jllK2blUDvaTC Z8mI1b8iNkIfecknafu7A+UlTYQrIHQTa0sVnz72Z7IE/bP+7OweCxuXxuKGCymsvVSJ ba7A== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4VNNDiTtc46LJ12q/Jp29RvQY5iBTFAdy9IS7Uw5AkNCNHUb8I WNowPWEF0bpAarxilCwDcl37E6SH5Q== X-Received: by 10.36.29.17 with SMTP id 17mr23033078itj.112.1494303080470; Mon, 08 May 2017 21:11:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.36.181.85 with HTTP; Mon, 8 May 2017 21:11:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.181.85 with HTTP; Mon, 8 May 2017 21:11:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <816001739.3185227.1494154832007.JavaMail.zimbra@ulg.ac.be> References: <816001739.3185227.1494154832007.JavaMail.zimbra@ulg.ac.be> From: george.dit@gmail.com Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 06:11:19 +0200 Message-ID: To: Tom Barbette , users@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] Assigning queues according to MAC or VLAN X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 04:11:21 -0000 Hi, I face a similar problem with Tom, could you please shed some light on this issue? Dynamicity and performance are my two concerns as well. Thanks, Georgios On May 7, 2017 1:00 PM, wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm trying to dispatch packets to queue according to VLAN or MAC address > with Intel 82599 cards. But the question remains general. > > I tried MAC-VLAN flow director mode but it seems unsupported by those > cards and Intel XL710 ones also (With testpmd, 82599 refuse to initialize > and I get operation not supported for XL710). Is it really an hardware > limitation or should support be coming soon? > > With VMDq, I could create pools with MAC/VLAN filters but the problem is > that MAC and VLAN assignation are static, at initialization time. I'd > prefer a dynamic solution where I can change filtering parameters while > running. > > Last resort seems to use VFs, but it's a bit overkill and I'm not sure > about the performance penalty. Is it my only option? > > Thanks, > > Tom >