Michel Machado

The following log entries from scenario 1 show that there was an issue while applying the code of pull request #596: ``` [2022-08-22 11:38:25] GATEKEEPER: Flow (src: 59.109.120.5, dst: 30.30.30.193)...

Side notes: 1. The GK parameters `local max_pkt_burst_front = 320` and `local max_pkt_burst_back = 320` used in both scenarios may add latency in production. I advise testing the need for...

The improvement of the code that heals the flow table has been forward ported to v1.1 and merged (see pull request #601). Moreover, I've investigated the root cause of the...

Thanks to the pull request #438, this feature is not needed for grantor servers, but supporting multipath is still important for Gatekeeper servers because routing daemons may have routes with...

Hi @ShawnLeung87, A more accurate answer requires understanding your deployment environment and the kind of scenarios you want to protect against. In general, one is concerned with protecting the management...

Hi @anarcat, Thank you for bringing this issue up. Hopefully, this discussion will lead us to a better tagline. This outcome would be wonderful since it would help newcomers. The...

Hi @HorlbogeDE, It is possible. But given that we are not working to deploy in this scenario, one is going to find some issues in this minimal scenario. Reviewing the...

This issue depends on us having a good testing environment. This test environment must generate normal and under-attack traffic patterns and a number of performance and correctness metrics in order...

Another lower hanging fruit is for GK blocks to adopt `rte_lpm_lookupx4()` as well.

The log entries you singled out are not errors, but sanity checks. Gatekeeper does a number of verifications on each entry that goes into its routing table to hopefully reject...