From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2/net-next 7/7] tc: flower: Support matching on ND Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 10:44:59 +0100 Message-ID: <20170206094459.GA2024@nanopsycho> References: <1486031920-10784-1-git-send-email-simon.horman@netronome.com> <1486031920-10784-8-git-send-email-simon.horman@netronome.com> <20170202172748.GE1845@nanopsycho.orion> <20170206084359.GA20384@penelope.horms.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Stephen Hemminger , Dinan Gunawardena , netdev@vger.kernel.org, oss-drivers@netronome.com To: Simon Horman Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f66.google.com ([74.125.82.66]:36190 "EHLO mail-wm0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750980AbdBFJpC (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2017 04:45:02 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-f66.google.com with SMTP id r18so20806714wmd.3 for ; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 01:45:02 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170206084359.GA20384@penelope.horms.nl> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 09:44:00AM CET, simon.horman@netronome.com wrote: >On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 06:27:48PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 11:38:40AM CET, simon.horman@netronome.com wrote: >> >Allow matching on Neighbour Discovery target IP, and source and >> >destination link-layer addresses for neighbour solicitation and >> >advertisement messages. >> > >> >Sample usage: >> > >> >tc qdisc add dev eth0 ingress >> > >> >tc filter add dev eth0 protocol ipv6 parent ffff: flower \ >> > indev eth0 ip_proto icmpv6 type 136 code 0 \ >> > nd_target 2001:470:7eb3:403:201:8eff:fe22:8fea \ >> > nd_tll 00:01:8e:22:8f:ea action drop >> > >> >Signed-off-by: Simon Horman >> >> >> Why you are adding this to iproute2? You only poster RFC for kernel. >> >> Please push to kernel first, let it merge, then send iproute2 support. > >Hi Jiri, > >I think there is a value in making the user-space code available in >parallel with the kernel changes to allow testing and so by any interested >parties. Then mark it "RFC". > >If this is not acceptable I'm happy to stop doing so. But in my ideal world >I'd be very happy to see other TC kernel updates accompanied by >implementations their user-space tool counterparts.