[v4,2/3] examples/l3fwd: use reserved IPv4/IPv6 addresses

  The l3fwd example should use the IPv4 addresses defined in RFC5735 and
the IPv6 addresses defined in RFC5180 for the L3 forwarding example
Longest Prefix Match table.

Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
---
v4 - fix IPv6 /48 entries

 examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_lpm.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++----------------
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
  

Hi Stephen,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Hemminger
> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 9:39 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/3] examples/l3fwd: use reserved IPv4/IPv6
> addresses
> 
> The l3fwd example should use the IPv4 addresses defined in RFC5735 and the
> IPv6 addresses defined in RFC5180 for the L3 forwarding example Longest Prefix
> Match table.

There should probably be a fixes line.
Also the commit line should have the "fix" keyword. 
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> ---
> v4 - fix IPv6 /48 entries
> 
>  examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_lpm.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++----------------
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_lpm.c b/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_lpm.c index
> b1dc195ad8cb..3191fc4c2639 100644
> --- a/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_lpm.c
> +++ b/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_lpm.c
> @@ -39,26 +39,28 @@ struct ipv6_l3fwd_lpm_route {
>  	uint8_t  if_out;
>  };
> 
> +/* 192.18.0.0/16 are set aside for RFC2544 benchmarking. */
>  static struct ipv4_l3fwd_lpm_route ipv4_l3fwd_lpm_route_array[] = {
> -	{IPv4(1, 1, 1, 0), 24, 0},
> -	{IPv4(2, 1, 1, 0), 24, 1},
> -	{IPv4(3, 1, 1, 0), 24, 2},
> -	{IPv4(4, 1, 1, 0), 24, 3},
> -	{IPv4(5, 1, 1, 0), 24, 4},
> -	{IPv4(6, 1, 1, 0), 24, 5},
> -	{IPv4(7, 1, 1, 0), 24, 6},
> -	{IPv4(8, 1, 1, 0), 24, 7},
> +	{IPv4(192, 18, 0, 0), 24, 0},
> +	{IPv4(192, 18, 1, 0), 24, 1},
> +	{IPv4(192, 18, 2, 0), 24, 2},
> +	{IPv4(192, 18, 3, 0), 24, 3},
> +	{IPv4(192, 18, 4, 0), 24, 4},
> +	{IPv4(192, 18, 5, 0), 24, 5},
> +	{IPv4(192, 18, 6, 0), 24, 6},
> +	{IPv4(192, 18, 7, 0), 24, 7},
>  };
> 
> +/* 2001:0200::/48 is IANA reserved range for IPv6 benchmarking
> +(RFC5180) */
>  static struct ipv6_l3fwd_lpm_route ipv6_l3fwd_lpm_route_array[] = {
> -	{{1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1}, 48, 0},
> -	{{2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1}, 48, 1},
> -	{{3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1}, 48, 2},
> -	{{4, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1}, 48, 3},
> -	{{5, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1}, 48, 4},
> -	{{6, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1}, 48, 5},
> -	{{7, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1}, 48, 6},
> -	{{8, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1}, 48, 7},
> +	{{32, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, 48, 0},
> +	{{32, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, 48, 1},
> +	{{32, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, 48, 2},
> +	{{32, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, 48, 3},
> +	{{32, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, 48, 4},
> +	{{32, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 5, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, 48, 5},
> +	{{32, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 6, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, 48, 6},
> +	{{32, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 7, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, 48, 7},
>  };
> 
>  #define IPV4_L3FWD_LPM_NUM_ROUTES \
> --
> 2.17.1

Regards,

Bernard.
  

On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 13:07:33 +0000
"Iremonger, Bernard" <bernard.iremonger@intel.com> wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Hemminger
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 9:39 PM
> > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/3] examples/l3fwd: use reserved IPv4/IPv6
> > addresses
> > 
> > The l3fwd example should use the IPv4 addresses defined in RFC5735 and the
> > IPv6 addresses defined in RFC5180 for the L3 forwarding example Longest Prefix
> > Match table.  
> 
> There should probably be a fixes line.
> Also the commit line should have the "fix" keyword. 

The original behavior was not a bug. It was just a poor design choice.
Therefore the lack of fixes tag is intentional.
Also didn't want this patch to make it into stable release and risk breaking
some existing test bed.