From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Matthew Hall <mhall@mhcomputing.net>
Subject: Re: rte_lpm with larger nexthops or another method?
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 21:13:14 -0700
Message-ID: <20150624041314.GA15524@mhcomputing.net>
References: <5A3882CB-0DE0-43DB-8DCA-051D561AA943@mhcomputing.net>
 <CANDrEHnuEwX6WGBFbMiB0C38m6axMRiAe3z=9OcjsZkGbPZSSA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150622175302.GA15788@mhcomputing.net>
 <20150622235102.41c3619a@uryu.home.lan>
 <20150623063024.GA3458@mhcomputing.net>
 <CANDrEHnh-cbT0ATSuvVjJ2xMyNL+tW+s3HY0f+=FSwpNF0uZNg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: "<dev@dpdk.org>" <dev@dpdk.org>
To: Vladimir Medvedkin <medvedkinv@gmail.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail.mhcomputing.net (master.mhcomputing.net [74.208.46.186])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2382C562
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 06:15:51 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANDrEHnh-cbT0ATSuvVjJ2xMyNL+tW+s3HY0f+=FSwpNF0uZNg@mail.gmail.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:19:58AM +0300, Vladimir Medvedkin wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Matthew,  I think ipv6 lpm code need less changes
> struct rte_lpm6_tbl_entry {
>         uint32_t next_hop:      21;  /**< Next hop / next table to be
> checked. */
>         uint32_t depth  :8;      /**< Rule depth. */
> 
>         /* Flags. */
>         uint32_t valid     :1;   /**< Validation flag. */
>         uint32_t valid_group :1; /**< Group validation flag. */
>         uint32_t ext_entry :1;   /**< External entry. */
> };
> there already is 21 bit for next_hop (need chenge only for rte_lpm6_rule)
> In Stephen approach for next_hop given only 16 bits, this is enough for
> next hop index, but not enough for AS number that originate prefix.
> 
> Regards,
> Vladimir

Vladimir,

One thing I was confused, you published the changes to rte_lpm_tbl24_entry but 
you didn't say what you did to change rte_lpm_tbl8_entry, as that one only had 
an 8-bit next_hop as well. I wanted to be sure I didn't change it wrong and 
break something.

Hopefully Stephen can make his bug fixes available so I could add all of this 
together and try to make a patchset for dpdk-next to test it all out. Would be 
a huge win compared to all the crappy LPM code I found on the Internet.

Matthew.