Just a clarification (from an off-line follow on between Venu and Eric),
this is what the flowadm(1m) stipulates:
The following five types of combinations of attributes are
supported:
local_ip[/prefixlen]=address
remote_ip[/prefixlen]=address
transport={tcp|udp|sctp|icmp|icmpv6}
transport={tcp|udp|sctp},local_port=port
dsfield=val[:dsfield_mask]
On a given link, the combinations above are mutually
exclusive. An attempt to create flows of different combina-
tions will fail.
The presence of the icmp-based flow is the reason of the failure.
In this phase of Crossbow, this is working as designed.
Thanks,
Kais.
On 04/20/09 10:44, venugopal iyer wrote:
>
> Hi, Robert:
>
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Below command works ok on b105 but it fails on b111 on x86
>> # flowadm show-flow
>> FLOW LINK IPADDR PROTO PORT
>> DSFLD
>> icmp aggr1 -- icmp -- --
>>
>> # flowadm add-flow -t -l aggr1 -a transport=tcp,local_port=22 local_ssh
>> flowadm: add flow failed: flow(s) with incompatible attributes exists
>
> that looks like a bug, seems like if we have any protocol based flow,
> a more specific flow (even on another transport) fails. I'll confirm this
> and submit a bug if needed.
>
>
>>
>>
>> ps. any plans on implementing again remote_port? Any info why it was
>> backed-out?
>
> we will plan to include remote_port as an RFE. Flows were simplified
> before integrating in nevada with the intent of developing it as
> we get more info. on how they will be used.
>
> thanks,
>
> -venu
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Robert Milkowski
>> http://milek.blogspot.com
>> --
