[ovs-discuss] Is a new field in flow.h necessary for matching on a custom v6 extension header?

Alan Kayahan hsykay at gmail.com
Mon Feb 26 15:30:50 UTC 2018


Makes total sense. I started with PISCES and made some progress, however it
feels like going into uncharted waters. I feared I might hit something
above my pay grade, so I am back to modifying ovs instead. Best of luck on
your P4 journey :)

2018-02-23 19:22 GMT+01:00 Ben Pfaff <blp at ovn.org>:

> Ultimately, I expect a P4-based solution, in which the controller
> supplies a P4 program that extracts the fields that it is interested in.
> This is my big project for OVS 2.10.  (I don't know how successful I'll
> be yet.)
>
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 12:37:40AM +0100, Alan Kayahan wrote:
> > I understand that there must be a construct in the struct flow, and
> > introducing a new be32 will save the day for me. However looking at this
> > from a broader perspective, say matching on the fields of any v6
> extension
> > header made into the OF specification, neither adding individual fields
> nor
> > adding every v6 extension header into the struct flow looks elegant to
> me.
> > What do you think?
> >
> > 2018-02-21 17:10 GMT+01:00 Ben Pfaff <blp at ovn.org>:
> >
> > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 06:15:30PM +0100, Alan Kayahan wrote:
> > > > I have a custom v6 extension header, in which I would like to
> perform an
> > > > LPM match on only one 32bit field.
> > > >
> > > > Since an extension header is technically not a new field, do I still
> need
> > > > to introduce anything in the struct flow?
> > >
> > > Without anything in struct flow, how do you propose to match on it?
> > >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-discuss/attachments/20180226/01cf35e8/attachment.html>


More information about the discuss mailing list