Hi Neale, Neale Ranns (nranns) <[email protected]> schrieb am Fr., 26. Jan. 2018 um 11:27 Uhr:
> Hi Andreas, > > > > Ip[46]_sw_interface_enable_disable() are the internal APIs that > enable/disable IP forwarding on an interface. There is an equivalent MPLS > one too. The commands I listed previously are external means by which these > internal APIs are invoked. It would not be acceptable to use these APIs to > automatically IP enable GTP interfaces on interface creation. > The tunnels are not static, they are create through a management protocol over the 3GPP Sx reference point. Having to add manual configuration steps to make the tunnels work is not acceptable. So I have to use API's to setup things the ways I need them. I'm not really sure the interface model is even correct my use case. I don't need to support L2 forwarding, so L2 bridging argument from the Wiki article does not apply. Regards, Andreas > > Regards, > > neale > > > > > > *From: *Andreas Schultz <[email protected]> > *Date: *Thursday, 25 January 2018 at 23:47 > *To: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> > *Cc: *"Neale Ranns (nranns)" <[email protected]>, Ole Troan < > [email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: [vpp-dev] Howto implement L3 p2p tunnel interface without > assigning IP to the interface? > > > > Ole Troan <[email protected]> schrieb am Do., 25. Jan. 2018 um > 22:07 Uhr: > > > Not accepting IP[46] packets on any interface type that is not IP[46] > enabled is a basic security feature. To IP4 enable an interface you have > two option; > > 1) Assign it an IP address > > 2) Make it IP unnumbered to another interface that does have an > address, e.g. > > set int ip addr loop0 some-private-addr/32 > > set int unnumbered gtpu-tunnel-0 use loop0 > > set int unnumbered gtpu-tunnel-1 use loop0 > > set int unnumbered gtpu-tunnel-2 use loop0 > > etc… > > It doesn’t have to be a loopback, I use that only as an example. > > > > To IP6 enable an interface instead of the unnumbered trick one can just > do; > > 1) enable ip6 interface gtpu-tunnel0 > > Although all IPv6 interfaces by definition have an IPv6 address (the IPv6 > link-local) I do wonder if we shouldn't allow for IP processing to be > enabled for both IP4 and IP6 independently of having an address configured. > (Of course that would imply that some protocols wouldn't work.) > > > > ip4_sw_interface_enable_disable() and/or ip6_sw_interface_enable_disable() > did the trick. It works now without having to use the unnumbered option or > having to assign a IPv4 address. I didn't check IPv6, though. > > > > Thanks for the help, > > Andreas > > > > Cheers, > Ole > >
_______________________________________________ vpp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
