I think it was considered cleaner from an ABI perspective, since it doesn't require another action, since "set" was already supported. In practice, I don't think it's a problem, since usually a TTL decrement is associated with a routing decision, and TTLs tend to be fairly static between two hosts.
--Justin > On Aug 27, 2019, at 1:11 AM, bindiya Kurle <[email protected]> wrote: > > hi , > I have a question related to dec_ttl action implemented in datapath. > when dec_ttl action is configured in OVS following action get added in > datapath. > > recirc_id(0),in_port(2),eth(),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(ttl=64,frag=no), > packets:3, bytes:294, used:0.068s, actions:set(ipv4(ttl=63)),3, > > if packet comes with different TTL on same port then one more action get > added in datapath. > for ex: > recirc_id(0),in_port(2),eth(),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(ttl=9,frag=no), > packets:3, bytes:294, used:0.068s, actions:set(ipv4(ttl=8)),3, > > Could someone please explain why dec_ttl is implemeted as a set action > rather than dec_ttl action. > > > I mean , why for different ttl one more rule get added rather than just > adding it as following as done in userspace > > recirc_id(0),in_port(3),eth(),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(frag=no), packets:3, > bytes:294, used:0.737s, actions:dec_ttl,2 > > Regards, > Bindiya > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
