Yes, if the NIC is capable of accelerating tunnel encaps/decaps (and the
corresponding API
is available in DPDK), it would make sense to do it.
Raja
On 9/16/16, 8:42 PM, "Patil, Harish" <harish.pa...@cavium.com> wrote:
Hi Raja,
I am referring to the latest code from
https://github.com/Juniper/contrail-vrouter.git.
I too felt that it could be some backdoor way, due to lack of proper APIs
in DPDK 2.1.
Anyway, now given that flow director is not used (or need not be used),
what are your thoughts to enable DPDK tunneling mechanisms in Contrail ?
According to me, the standard way would be to invoke
rte_eth_dev_filter_ctrl() with filter_type set to appropriate tunneling
protocols.
Note: MPLS is not added as rte_eth_tunnel_type in DPDK, we may have to
introduce it newly.
Please let know.
Thanks,
Harish
>Hi Harish,
> We do not use flow director at the moment. The code you refer to
>below was
>for experimental purposes only and has been ifdef’ed out.
>
>Raja
>
>On 9/16/16, 7:25 PM, "Patil, Harish" <harish.pa...@cavium.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Raja,
> Thanks for the response.
>
> Is flow director a prerequisite to work with Contrail or is it a
> configurable option within Contrail to not to use it?
> From the code, it seems at-least for the MPLS case, Contrail makes
>use of
> flow director API rte_eth_dev_fdir_add_perfect_filter() to pass the
>MPLS
> label as the 'flex bytes' for filtering/Rx queue steering. If this is
> true, it creates a dependency on the NIC drivers to implement flow
> directors to be able to interop with Contrail solution.
> APIs like rte_eth_dev_fdir_add_perfect_filter() are deprecated in
>later
> DPDK releases. This means Contrail has to be adapted to use
> RTE_FDIR_MODE_PERFECT_TUNNEL flowdir mode (if flowdir is a must) or
>new
> filtering APIs like rte_eth_dev_filter_ctrl() with
>RTE_ETH_FILTER_TUNNEL
> mode (if flowdir is not required).
> Pls let me know.
>
> Thanks,
> Harish
>
>
>
>
> >Hi Harish,
> > You are right – we use DPDK 2.1 at the moment. We have no
>immediate
> >plans
> >of moving to a new DPDK version. But it is expected that we will
>upgrade
> >at some
> >point to pick up some fixes, support new NICs etc.
> >
> >Raja
> >
> >On 9/16/16, 2:38 PM, "Dev on behalf of Patil, Harish"
> ><dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org on behalf of
>harish.pa...@cavium.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> > Posting the question that I asked in
>us...@lists.opencontrail.org.
> >
> > Hi,
> > I know the fact that Contrail 3.0+ supports DPDK.
> > Do you know what version(s) of DPDK are supported with it?
> > At least from the code it appears that the supported version is
>2.1.
> > If this is true, do you know when will Contrail be able to
>support
> >latest
> > DPDK versions (16.07 or 16.04)?
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Harish
> >
> > Note: I¹m a new user to this mailing list. Pardon me if this
>happens
> >to be
> > repeat question.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dev mailing list
> > Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
> >
>
>>http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.opencontrail.org
http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org
