[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1384708847.8604.50.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 09:20:47 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
Cc: Or Gerlitz <or.gerlitz@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] veth: extend features to support tunneling
On Sat, 2013-11-16 at 23:31 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> In case of VMs sending gso packets over tap and tunnel in the host,
> ip_forward is not in the picture.
>
I was specifically answering to #2 which should use ip forwarding, of
course. Note that my patch was a POC : We have many other places where
the typical MTU check is simply disabled as soon as skb is GSO.
> when host mtu doesn't account for overhead of tunnel, the neat trick
> we can do is to decrease gso_size while adding tunnel header.
That would be very broken to change gso_size, this breaks DF flag
semantic. You need to send an ICMP, and the sender will take appropriate
action.
GRO + GSO request that forwarded segments are the same than incoming
ones. It's not like a proxy that can chose to aggregate as it wants.
--
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