[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <adaiqjc99uq.fsf@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:27:25 -0700
From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
Cc: "Zou\, Yi" <yi.zou@...el.com>,
"netdev\@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-scsi\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"Leech\, Christopher" <christopher.leech@...el.com>,
"Dev\, Vasu" <vasu.dev@...el.com>,
"Love\, Robert W" <robert.w.love@...el.com>,
"Ma\, Steve" <steve.ma@...el.com>,
"Waskiewicz Jr\, Peter P" <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>,
"Kirsher\, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Question regarding protocol specific mtu for FCoE
> Aren't all stations in the same broadcast domain "supposed" to have
> the same MTU, at least down at L2? So, a station in the broadcast
> domain just doing IP and a station in the broadcast domain doing
> IP+FCoE "should" have the same MTU at the HW level right?
>
> I could see where there would be lots of PMTU going-on if the
> communications were to off-campus sites also had an FCoE upping their
> MTU. Otherwise, the MSS exchange at connection establishment is going
> to preclude it right? PMTU only "hits" when one has a so called
> "dumb-bell" network which is "wider" at the ends than in the middle.
Yes, I think such dumb-bell networks would be pretty common (servers in
two different data centers with FCoE enabled, talking through an
old-school WAN with 1500 MTU). And even if they're not as common I
think, we probably do want to have some way to handle this.
I'm probably not as up on old and/or obscure networking protocols, but
to me FCoE is the first time I've been forced to think about coexistence
of IP and non-IP protocols through the same netdev.
- R.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists