On 11/30/18 5:14 PM, Peter Oskolkov wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 3:52 PM David Ahern <dsah...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 11/30/18 4:35 PM, Peter Oskolkov wrote: >>> Thanks, David! This is for egress only, so I'll add an appropriate >>> check. I'll also address your other comments/concerns in a v2 version >>> of this patchset. >> >> Why are you limiting this to egress only? > > I'm focusing on egress because this is a use case that we have and > understand well, and would like to have a solution for sooner rather > than later. > > Without understanding why anybody would want to do lwt-bpf encap on > ingress, I don't know, for example, what a good test would look like; > but I'd be happy to look into a specific ingress use case if you have > one. >
We can not have proliferation of helpers for a lot of one off use cases. A little thought now makes this helper useful for more than just your 1 use case. And, IPv6 parity should be a minimal requirement for helpers. Based on your route lookup I presume your use case is capturing certain local traffic, pushing a custom header and sending that packet else where. The same could be done on the ingress path.