-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18
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
[SDFAB-1110] Add support for application filter #54
[SDFAB-1110] Add support for application filter #54
Conversation
…add-multiple-sdf-filters
…add-multiple-sdf-filters
34d259a
to
b4d2c7e
Compare
b4d2c7e
to
a63006e
Compare
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.
LGTM, but I have a concern about gateClosed vs. appFIlter
api/pfcpsim.proto
Outdated
int32 qfi = 6; // Should be uint8 | ||
bool gateClosed = 7; | ||
bool gateClosed = 7; // If set, the application QERs will have the Gate status to closed. |
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.
Isn't gateClosed
in conflict with appFilter
now? What if we define gateClosed = true and appFilter = allow ? Which one have a precedence?
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.
Right. I removed the gate status flag. The only way to set the gate status is now by using the app-filter flag
PR's aim is to add an application filter flag, using the format
<Protocol>:<IP>/<SubnetMask>:<Port>-<Port>:<Action>
depends on :