-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 898
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Addition of more comments to MyEgress and MyVerifyChecksum in basic_tunnel.p4 #575
Conversation
Abhinavcode13
commented
Mar 30, 2024
- Added detailed comments for MyEgress and MyVerifyChecksum blocks.
Any suggestions or feedback is appreciated for this. @jafingerhut |
|
||
TODO: Implement the logic to modify packet headers based on policy rules | ||
and determine the egress port for forwarding based on the destination IP | ||
addr. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please remove the "and determine eht egress port ..." part of this sentence. If the ingress control is missing code to do this, it is appropriate to have a comment to add such code to the ingress control, but as mentioned in another comment, the egress control cannot change the packet's output port.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So what we can add here in todo for this block?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess more importantly is: do we need these changes at all? Is there something in the exercise that recommends changing these parts of the basic_tunnel.p4 program at all?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe that as well, but I felt that I should complete it for basictunnel.p4 in considering PR #572
Nevermind , We can close this PR as of now.
Sure, the difference is: in that other P4 program, those comments were pointing out places in the code that needed to be changed in order to complete the exercise. |
Not necessary as of now, I'll close this one. |