Hi Ferruh, The full patch set will be sent for the coming 24.03 release.
Thank you. > -----Original Message----- > From: Ferruh Yigit <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 5:56 PM > To: Ori Kam <[email protected]>; Bing Zhao <[email protected]>; NBU- > Contact-Thomas Monjalon (EXTERNAL) <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ethdev: introduce NAT64 action > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > > On 9/21/2023 4:45 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > On 9/19/2023 11:05 AM, Ori Kam wrote: > >> Hi Bing > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Bing Zhao <[email protected]> > >>> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 5:07 PM > >>> Subject: [RFC PATCH] ethdev: introduce NAT64 action > >>> > >>> In order to support the communication between IPv4 and IPv6 nodes in > >>> the network, different technologies are used, like dual-stacks, > >>> tunneling and NAT64. In some IPv4-only clients, it is hard to deploy > >>> new software and hardware to support IPv6. > >>> > >>> NAT64 is a choice and it will also reduce the unnecessary overhead > >>> of the traffic in the network. The NAT64 gateways take the > >>> responsibility of the packet headers translation between the IPv6 > >>> clouds and IPv4-only clouds. > >>> > >>> This action should support the offloading of the IP headers' > >>> translation. The following fields should be reset correctly in the > >>> translation. > >>> - Version > >>> - Traffic Class / TOS > >>> - Flow Label (0 in v4) > >>> - Payload Length / Total length > >>> - Next Header > >>> - Hop Limit / TTL > >>> > >>> Since there are different mapping and translating modes of the > >>> addresses, it will depend on the capabilities of each vendor. > >>> > >>> The ICMP* and transport layers protocol is out of the scope of NAT64 > >>> rte_flow action. > >>> > >>> Reference links: > >>> - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6146 > >>> - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6052 > >>> - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6145 > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Bing Zhao <[email protected]> > >>> --- > >> > >> Acked-by: Ori Kam <[email protected]> > >> > > > > Hi Bing, > > > > This is a RFC, but we are not having more comment & objection, so what > > do you think to continue with a patch including testpmd implementation? > > > > > > Hi Bing, what is the latest status of the patch? BR. Bing
