Phil Sutter <phil@xxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 04:42:00PM +0100, Quentin Armitage wrote: > > The dup statement requires an address, and the device is optional, > > not the other way round. > > > > Signed-off-by: Quentin Armitage <quentin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > doc/statements.txt | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/doc/statements.txt b/doc/statements.txt > > index 9155f286..835db087 100644 > > --- a/doc/statements.txt > > +++ b/doc/statements.txt > > @@ -648,7 +648,7 @@ The dup statement is used to duplicate a packet and send the > > copy to a different > > destination. > > > > [verse] > > -*dup to* 'device' > > +*dup to* 'address' > > *dup to* 'address' *device* 'device' > > > > .Dup statement values > > The examples are wrong, too. I wonder if this is really just a mistake > and all three examples given (including the "advanced" usage using a > map) are just wrong or if 'dup' actually was meant to support > duplicating to a device in mirror port fashion. Right, 'dup to eth0' can be used in the netdev ingress hook. For dup from ipv4/ipv6 families the address is needed.
