Not at all. But if we are going to start adding additional terms it may be
better to look at a longer term strategies as well. If we have immediate
need for other PMR terms then we should add them, but I think as looking
for a "next gen" approach is also worthwhile.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 1:42 PM
If we can find a SW P4 implementation for linux-generic...
Do you mean that we should drop all existing pre-defined pattern matching
rules for P4?
On 14 February 2017 at 18:40, Bill Fischofer
wrote:
> While it is designed to be realized in HW, I believe P4 can also be
> realized in SW. That w
While it is designed to be realized in HW, I believe P4 can also be
realized in SW. That would provide a generic means of having a unified
parser/classification strategy that is portable across all platforms, in
keeping with ODP's design goals.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Francois Ozog
wrot
While we can extend the current ODP classifier by adding additional
PMR terms, I think a better long-term strategy is to adopt P4 as a
generalized parser adjunct to better map to future flexible HW
platforms (FPGA or SoC) that will be implementing native P4
capabilities as P4 continues to gain indu
Hi,
as I was checking ODP Classification rules, I spotted a few possible extensions:
- global options:
. apply the defined rule on the last IP header
- additional rules
. rule on SCTP port
. rule on IPsec SPI
. rule on GTP TEID
Can those extensions be implemented by current hardware
