[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1344016163.2610.9.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 18:49:23 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To: John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>,
Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...band.com>,
"e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] discussion questions: SR-IOV, virtualization, and
bonding
On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 21:50 -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
> On 8/2/2012 4:01 PM, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
[...]
> > Still, though, isn't "influence the guest's choice" pretty much
> > satisified by having the VF interface go carrier down in the guest when
> > the host wants it to? Or are you thinking about more fine grained than
> > that?
> >
>
> Perhaps one argument against this is if the hardware supports loopback
> modes or the edge relay in the hardware is acting like a VEB it may
> still be possible to support VF to VF traffic even if the external link
> is down. Not sure how useful this is though or if any existing hardware
> even supports it.
[...]
It seems to me that VF to VF traffic ought to still work. If it doesn't
then that's an unfortunate regression when moving from software bridging
and virtio to hardware-supported network virtualisation. (But hybrid
network virtualisation may help to solve that.)
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
--
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