From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Nambiar, Amritha" <amritha.nambiar@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [iproute2-next PATCH v3 2/2] man: tc-flower: Add explanation for
 range option
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 20:44:52 -0800
Message-ID: <3000d314-2217-b2e6-230c-c9b41f173f2f@intel.com>
References: <154232971379.10668.16416943966699679792.stgit@anamhost.jf.intel.com>
 <154232971889.10668.16009642596079446767.stgit@anamhost.jf.intel.com>
 <1c2cee31-af86-e285-c9d9-09a3105daa4b@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: jakub.kicinski@netronome.com, sridhar.samudrala@intel.com,
        jhs@mojatatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, jiri@resnulli.us
To: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>, stephen@networkplumber.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:47172 "EHLO mga14.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1726049AbeKUPRk (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 21 Nov 2018 10:17:40 -0500
In-Reply-To: <1c2cee31-af86-e285-c9d9-09a3105daa4b@gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On 11/20/2018 2:56 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> On 11/15/18 5:55 PM, Amritha Nambiar wrote:
>> Add details explaining filtering based on port ranges.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Amritha Nambiar <amritha.nambiar@intel.com>
>> ---
>>  man/man8/tc-flower.8 |   12 ++++++++++--
>>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/man/man8/tc-flower.8 b/man/man8/tc-flower.8
>> index 8be8882..768bfa1 100644
>> --- a/man/man8/tc-flower.8
>> +++ b/man/man8/tc-flower.8
>> @@ -56,8 +56,10 @@ flower \- flow based traffic control filter
>>  .IR MASKED_IP_TTL " | { "
>>  .BR dst_ip " | " src_ip " } "
>>  .IR PREFIX " | { "
>> -.BR dst_port " | " src_port " } "
>> -.IR port_number " } | "
>> +.BR dst_port " | " src_port " } { "
>> +.IR port_number " | "
>> +.B range
>> +.IR min_port_number-max_port_number " } | "
>>  .B tcp_flags
>>  .IR MASKED_TCP_FLAGS " | "
>>  .B type
>> @@ -227,6 +229,12 @@ Match on layer 4 protocol source or destination port number. Only available for
>>  .BR ip_proto " values " udp ", " tcp  " and " sctp
>>  which have to be specified in beforehand.
>>  .TP
>> +.BI range " MIN_VALUE-MAX_VALUE"
>> +Match on a range of layer 4 protocol source or destination port number. Only
>> +available for
>> +.BR ip_proto " values " udp ", " tcp  " and " sctp
>> +which have to be specified in beforehand.
>> +.TP
>>  .BI tcp_flags " MASKED_TCP_FLAGS"
>>  Match on TCP flags represented as 12bit bitfield in in hexadecimal format.
>>  A mask may be optionally provided to limit the bits which are matched. A mask
>>
> 
> This prints as:
> 
> dst_port NUMBER
> src_port NUMBER
>       Match  on  layer  4  protocol source or destination port number.
>       Only available for ip_proto values udp, tcp and sctp which  have
>       to be specified in beforehand.
> 
> range MIN_VALUE-MAX_VALUE
>       Match  on a range of layer 4 protocol source or destination port
>       number. Only available for ip_proto values  udp,  tcp  and  sctp
>       which have to be specified in beforehand.
> 
> ###
> 
> That makes it look like range is a standalone option - independent of
> dst_port/src_port.
> 
> It seems to me the dst_port / src_port should be updated to:
> 
> dst_port {NUMBER | range MIN_VALUE-MAX_VALUE}
> 
> with the description updated for both options and indented under
> dst_port / src_port
> 

Okay, will do.

- Amritha