[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170104103301.GA30008@penelope.horms.nl>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 11:33:03 +0100
From: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>
To: Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>
Cc: Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Hadar Hen Zion <hadarh@...lanox.com>,
Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
Roi Dayan <roid@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2 net-next] tc: flower: support matching flags
On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 01:54:34PM +0200, Paul Blakey wrote:
...
Hi Paul,
> Matching name was from the idea that we are doing is matching.
> And regarding documentation/flag names I didn't want tc tool to be need of a
> update each time a new flag is introduced,
> But I guess I can add two options like with ip_proto where you can specify
> known flags by name but can also give a value.
> What do you think about that?
>
> flags <FLAGS> / <HEX'/'HEX>
> FLAGS => frag/no_frag/tcp_syn/no_tcp_syn ['|'<FLAGS>]*
> e.g: flags frag|no_tcp_syn or flags 0x01/0x15
> and the mask will have a on bits corresponds only to those flags specified.
I suppose a flag is a flag and bitwise masking allows arbitrary matching
on one or more flags. But I wonder if, as per your example above,
it makes sense to mix IP (frag) and TCP flags in the same field of the
classifier.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists