If you want to take it to the next level, and do a great service to your
fellow man, I would encourage you to update the tutorial to use:
https://docs.fd.io/vpp/17.10/clicmd_src_plugins_memif.html
to interconnect the various vpp instances :)
Ed
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Ed Warnicke wrote
Justin,
I've fixed the tutorial in this area:
https://wiki.fd.io/view/VPP/Progressive_VPP_Tutorial
Here's the net net. Damjan improved the vppctl, rewriting it in C, and
having it talk over a file socket to vpp. This is goodness. It does mean
you do the multi-vpp instance thing a bit differen
Hi Justin,
Functionally, from your perspective, there’s no difference. They’re just two
options you have to exercise the debug cli. It’s up to you to decide which
works best for what you’re trying to achieve.
And 0 is just a shorthand for local host.
Florin
> On Oct 5, 2017, at 10:46 AM, Ju
Florin,
Thanks for that. What's the difference between my technique and yours using
telnet ? Also, what does the 0 correspond to ? Is it an instance index or
something else ?
Justin
> Le 5 oct. 2017 à 17:23, Florin Coras a écrit :
>
> Justin,
>
> That looks about right. The other option wo
Hi Jeff,
Yes, I really need the router plugin. The experiment I described is a
preliminary test for multiple VRF functionality. Once we see that it works
we will use the Linux control plane to create the routes.
So, if you will push the changes to vppsb that will make it work with 1707
it would b
Hi Michael, do you really need the router plugin? Based on the commands you’re
using it seems you’re adding routes using the vpp cli interface, which is not
how the router plugin is supposed to work. Those routes won’t show up on the
control side (i.e. Linux). Nor is there any support for mul
Does VPP supports Mellanox ConnectX3-pro 10G NIC? I can see that I supports
connectX4.
Thanks,
Devendra
___
vpp-dev mailing list
vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
Hi Pierre,
I would like to have two VRFs. The first interface belongs to VRF-1, the
second to VRF-2 and the third should be shared between the VRFS (i.e., the
default VRF-0, as I understand...).
Now, if a packet arrives at the first or the second interface, it should be
forwarded via the third in
That's a good idea and then we can see how much project specific
conversation really goes on in them before making a decision to bump
everyone to the new channel.
Regards,
Thanh
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Ed Warnicke wrote:
> One suggestion I would have would be to do a phased transition,
A good step in the right direction. How does this translate in terms of python
package versioning?
Ideally, we should have a python PyPI package for programming VPP using python
library.
Thanks
Alec
From: on behalf of "Marek Gradzki -X (mgradzki -
PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco)"
Date
Justin,
That looks about right. The other option would be to use telnet. So instead of
“cli-listen /run/vpp/cli.vpp1.sock” do something like “cli-listen
localhost:5002” and then telnet 0 5002
Florin
> On Oct 5, 2017, at 1:18 AM, Justin Iurman wrote:
>
> Hi Florin,
>
> In fact, that's what
Hi Klement,
It’s okay :-)
Just open a ticket, cherry-pick the patch and append the jira ticket id to the
subject. That should be enough.
Cheers,
Florin
> On Oct 5, 2017, at 8:11 AM, Klement Sekera -X (ksekera - PANTHEON
> TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco) wrote:
>
> Oh shoot, I never really learned
Oh shoot, I never really learned the process..
Looking at the other email, I've already screwed this up on multiple
levels as I did not file a JIRA and committed to master instead of
release throttle.
How do we proceed in these cases?
Quoting Billy McFall (2017-10-05 17:08:50)
>Klement,
>T
Klement,
Thank you for the path "drop python3 dependency" on master (
https://gerrit.fd.io/r/#/c/8584/), it will make ours lives downstream much
easier. I don't see the patch on stable/1710. Is there a plan to cherry
pick to 1710? (Sorry if it already there, just didn't see it.)
Thanks,
Billy McF
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:12 AM, Thanh Ha
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Thanh Ha
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> We'd like to pitch an idea to have #opendaylight-releng irc channel
>> redirect to a new #lf-releng channel. Something that's occurred to us is
>> that many of the network
+1
having explicit version number in the api file is a good thing in my opinion.
I think also Java bindings could benefit a bit from your proposal.
While the only backward compatible api change is probably parameter rename,
one could generate more human friendly error messages on CRC mismatch.
Francois,
Almost every VPP feature assumes that data is adjacent to vlib_buffer_t.
It will be huge rework to make this happen, and it will slow down performance as
it will introduce dependent read at many places in the code...
So to answer your question, we don’t have such plans.
Thanks,
Damja
Hi Florin,
In fact, that's what I was already trying. Anyway, I found a way to make it
work but I'm still not sure that's the right/best way to do so.
# vpp1 instance
sudo vpp unix { log /tmp/vpp1.log full-coredump cli-listen
/run/vpp/cli.vpp1.sock } api-segment { prefix vpp1 } api-trace { on }
Hello Michael,
Can you be more specific about what doesn't work ?
Jeff, do you have some time to look at the router plugin ?
Thanks,
- Pierre
Le 5 oct. 2017 à 05:22, Michael Borokhovich
mailto:michael...@gmail.com>> a écrit :
Hi Florin,
Thank you for the response. The reason I stick to 160
19 matches
Mail list logo
