Re: [vpp-dev] routing configuration other than default

Hi Sothy, If you want ping to use a non-default table to lookup the address, you have to specify the table: vpp# ping 172.30.1.1 table-id 1 /neale From: on behalf of sothy Date: Wednesday 22 January 2020 at 08:43 To: "Balaji Venkatraman (balajiv)" Cc: "vpp-dev@lists.fd.io" Subject: Re:

Re: [vpp-dev] #vpp-hoststack - Issue with UDP receiver application using VCL library

Hi Raj, Inline. > On Jan 21, 2020, at 3:41 PM, Raj Kumar wrote: > > Hi Florin, > There is no drop on the interfaces. It is 100G card. > In UDP tx application, I am using 1460 bytes of buffer to send on select(). I > am getting 5 Gbps throughput ,but if I start one more application then

[vpp-dev] Performance off handoff #vpp #handoff

Yes, agree with you. Here I got a thought about handoff mechanism in vPP. If looking into the DPDK crypto scheduler, you will find out that it heavily depends on DPDK rings, for buffer delivery among CPU cores and even for the packet reordering. Therefore, something comes to my mind, why can’t

Re: [vpp-dev] routing configuration other than default

Hi Sothy, I think you need to have a default route defined in table 1. ip route add 0.0.0.0/0 table 1 via 172.30.1.2 host-vpp1eth1 could u try that? -- Regards, Balaji. From: on behalf of sothy Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 9:47 AM To: "vpp-dev@lists.fd.io" Subject:

[vpp-dev] Reminder: VPP 20.01 RC2 is *tomorrow* 22 January

Hi All, Just a kind reminder that we have the VPP 20.01 RC2 milestone tomorrow 18:00 UTC after that we will accept only the critical bugfixes on the stable branch in preparation for the release, which will happen a week after. Thanks! :-) --a (Your friendly 20.01 release

Re: [vpp-dev] vpp crashes on deleting route 0.0.0.0/0 via interface #vpp

Hi Neale, Thank you - adding interface to a specific table worked! 15.01.2020, 21:26, "Neale Ranns via Lists.Fd.Io" : Hi Sergey, It would work if your gre interface were also in the non-default table, i.e.  set int ip table 10 gre0 /neale From: Segey Yelantsev Date: Thursday

[vpp-dev] Coverity run FAILED as of 2020-01-21 14:00:23 UTC

Coverity run failed today. Current number of outstanding issues are 3 Newly detected: 0 Eliminated: 4 More details can be found at https://scan.coverity.com/projects/fd-io-vpp/view_defects -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#15208):

[vpp-dev] routing configuration other than default

Hi, I'm following the UPF-VPP development in https://github.com/travelping/vpp/tree/feature/1908/upf VPP version is show version vpp v19.08.1-393~g25cea519e-dirty built by root on buildkitsandbox at Tue Dec 3 14:06:31 UTC 2019 I use the following the interfaces and routing tables.(init.conf). I

Re: [vpp-dev] routing configuration other than default

Hello Balaji On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 8:31 PM Balaji Venkatraman (balajiv) < bala...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Sothy, > > > > I think you need to have a default route defined in table 1. > > > > ip route add 0.0.0.0/0 table 1 via 172.30.1.2 *host-vpp1eth1* > > > I guess you have typo in the

Re: [vpp-dev] #vpp-hoststack - Issue with UDP receiver application using VCL library

Hi Florin, There is no drop on the interfaces. It is 100G card. In UDP tx application, I am using 1460 bytes of buffer to send on select(). I am getting 5 Gbps throughput ,but if I start one more application then total throughput goes down to 4 Gbps as both the sessions are on the same thread. I

Re: [vpp-dev] #vpp-hoststack - Issue with UDP receiver application using VCL library

Correction : - Please read 17 Mbps as 17 Gbps and 13Mbps as 13Gbps in my previous mail. thanks, -Raj On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 6:41 PM Raj Kumar wrote: > Hi Florin, > There is no drop on the interfaces. It is 100G card. > In UDP tx application, I am using 1460 bytes of buffer to send on >