[RFC PATCH 0/5] Enable IPSec Inline for IXGBE PMD · Radu Nicolau <hidden> · 2017-08-25
[RFC PATCH 1/5] mbuff: added security offload flags · Radu Nicolau <hidden> · 2017-08-25
[RFC PATCH 2/5] ethdev: added security ops struct pointer · Radu Nicolau <hidden> · 2017-08-25
[RFC PATCH 3/5] rte_security: updates and enabled security operations for ethdev · Radu Nicolau <hidden> · 2017-08-25
Re: [RFC PATCH 3/5] rte_security: updates and enabled security operations for ethdev · Akhil Goyal <hidden> · 2017-08-29
Re: [RFC PATCH 3/5] rte_security: updates and enabled security operations for ethdev · Radu Nicolau <hidden> · 2017-08-29
Re: [RFC PATCH 3/5] rte_security: updates and enabled security operations for ethdev · Akhil Goyal <hidden> · 2017-08-29
[RFC PATCH 4/5] ixgbe: enable inline ipsec · Radu Nicolau <hidden> · 2017-08-25
Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] ixgbe: enable inline ipsec · Ananyev, Konstantin <hidden> · 2017-08-28
Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] ixgbe: enable inline ipsec · Radu Nicolau <hidden> · 2017-08-29
[RFC PATCH 5/5] examples/ipsec-secgw: enabled inline ipsec · Radu Nicolau <hidden> · 2017-08-25
Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] examples/ipsec-secgw: enabled inline ipsec · Akhil Goyal <hidden> · 2017-08-29
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Enable IPSec Inline for IXGBE PMD · Boris Pismenny <hidden> · 2017-08-29

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Enable IPSec Inline for IXGBE PMD

From: Boris Pismenny <hidden>
Date: 2017-08-29 13:00:13

Hi Radu,

In the our previous RFC, I got the impression that we had a consensus about
using rte_flow for inline and full protocol offload to net PMDs. However, this
patchset doesn't follow this convention. The rte_flow API allows for all future
encapsulations of these protocols to be expressed without re-implementing
rte_flow in rte_security.

Is there any reason not to use rte_flow?

`h`	back out one level
`j`	next message in thread
`k`	previous message in thread
`l`	drill in
`Esc`	close help / fold thread tree
`?`	toggle this help