Rare project developers

[mc36 <>]

hi,

excellent news, thanks!
if you have that code somewhere in public, i would
appreciate if i can take a look at it, or even better,
if you can pick up a task here that would be excellent...

here is my initial idea on the tasks need to be done:

we pick up one, (i personally +1 to int, as that
i have access to in our lab on some n9ks to interwork
test with...:)

then we'll study how and what they do compared to
the drafts, then we must come up with a software
only implementation, to have something that i can
sometimes interop test against to n9ks, and then
regularly interop test that sw fotwarder for the
dataplane vms (bmv2, tofino, dpdk/libpcap), and
have that fancy matrix on the project page a
meaningful green mark...:)

when the sw forwarder is done, we should proceed
with the p4emu for dpdk/libpcap (c code) simply
because that is i can easily experiment on my
homenet (10+ nodes, not a big deal if i down
some:), to see the possible bottleneck of the
design and fine-tune the export/import between
the dataplane/control-plane and don't have to
deal with the middleware (bffwd)....

after that stage, we could proceed to bmv2
to have something in p4 finally, but it's
still a warmup stage for the tofino p4 code...
as everything is already in a known good state,
and have test cases covered and executed regularly,
at least on the p4emu codebase-controlplane, we can
rule out everything and we can concentrate only on
the p4 parts....

regards,
cs




On 3/25/21 6:32 PM, Ronald van der Pol wrote:
> Hi Csaba,
>
> The P4.org INT spec contains reference code (v1model based).
> I ported that to Tofino a few years ago.  So I can contribute
> to the P4 dataplane code.
>
> I think we should start with an architecture discussion.
> Are we implementing INT or iOAM, or both? Where do we
> stick the info in the header stack? Do we report per
> hop or collect and report on egress? Or both?
>
>      rvdp