[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZTAceqxFSmL-jFuw@nataraja>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 19:57:14 +0200
From: Harald Welte <laforge@...monks.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: takeru hayasaka <hayatake396@...il.com>,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
osmocom-net-gprs@...ts.osmocom.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] ethtool: ice: Support for RSS settings to
GTP from ethtool
Hi Jakub,
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 10:37:03AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Harald went further and questioned use of the same IP addresses for
> -U and -C traffic, but even within one endpoint aren't these running
> on a different port?
yes.
> Can someone reasonably use the same UDP port for both types of traffic?
I don't think so. In the entire 3GPP protocol world, the UDP port numbers
for GTP-U and GTP-C are fixed. The various signaling protocols allow you to
communicate the IPv4/v6 address and TEID of tunnel endpoints, but never allow
you to communicate the port number - which hence must always be the well-known port
(2123 for GTP-C + 2152 for GTP-U).
Of course somebody could do whatever they want in some kind of internal interface
not required to interoperate with any other equipment/implementation/operator, but
I'd consider it not falling in your question of "reasonable use".
Regards,
Harald
--
- Harald Welte <laforge@...monks.org> https://laforge.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists