[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZV8SnZPBV4if5umR@nanopsycho>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 09:51:41 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Victor Nogueira <victor@...atatu.com>
Cc: jhs@...atatu.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com,
mleitner@...hat.com, vladbu@...dia.com, paulb@...dia.com,
pctammela@...atatu.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...atatu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v5 4/4] net/sched: act_blockcast: Introduce
blockcast tc action
Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 10:46:18PM CET, victor@...atatu.com wrote:
>This action takes advantage of the presence of tc block ports set in the
>datapath and multicasts a packet to ports on a block. By default, it will
>broadcast the packet to a block, that is send to all members of the block except
>the port in which the packet arrived on. However, the user may specify
>the option "tx_type all", which will send the packet to all members of the
>block indiscriminately.
>
>Example usage:
> $ tc qdisc add dev ens7 ingress_block 22
> $ tc qdisc add dev ens8 ingress_block 22
>
>Now we can add a filter to broadcast packets to ports on ingress block id 22:
>$ tc filter add block 22 protocol ip pref 25 \
> flower dst_ip 192.168.0.0/16 action blockcast blockid 22
Name the arg "block" so it is consistent with "filter add block". Make
sure this is aligned netlink-wise as well.
>
>Or if we wish to send to all ports in the block:
>$ tc filter add block 22 protocol ip pref 25 \
> flower dst_ip 192.168.0.0/16 action blockcast blockid 22 tx_type all
I read the discussion the the previous version again. I suggested this
to be part of mirred. Why exactly that was not addressed?
Instead of:
$ tc filter add block 22 protocol ip pref 25 \
flower dst_ip 192.168.0.0/16 action blockcast blockid 22
You'd have:
$ tc filter add block 22 protocol ip pref 25 \
flower dst_ip 192.168.0.0/16 action mirred egress redirect block 22
I don't see why we need special action for this.
Regarding "tx_type all":
Do you expect to have another "tx_type"? Seems to me a bit odd. Why not
to have this as "no_src_skip" or some other similar arg, without value
acting as a bool (flag) on netlink level.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists