Message-ID: <533C3E60.8070509@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 02 Apr 2014 12:44:16 -0400
From:	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com>
To:	Toshiaki Makita <toshiaki.makita1@...il.com>
CC:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] vlan: Try to adjust lower device mtu when configuring
 802.1AD vlans

On 04/02/2014 12:37 PM, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-04-02 at 09:31 -0400, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>> On 04/02/2014 08:21 AM, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 05:17:34PM -0400, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>>>> 802.1AD vlans supposed to encapsulate 802.1Q vlans.  To
>>>> do this, we need an extra 4 bytes of header which are typically
>>>> not accounted for by lower devices.  Some devices can not
>>>> support frames longer then 1522 bytes at all.  Such devices
>>>> can not really support 802.1AD, even in software, without
>>>> the vlan reducing its mtu value.
>>>>
>>>> This patch propses to increate the lower devices MTU to 1504
>>>> in case of 802.1AD configuration, and if device doesn't
>>>> support it, fail the creation of the vlan.  The user has an
>>>> option to configure older-style Q-in-Q vlans and manually
>>>> lower the mtu to support such encapsulation.
>>>
>>> I think you should do the opposite. The lower layer device may be used
>>> for other things than the VLAN, so it doesn't seem right to change it's
>>> MTU. Instead I'd propose to set the MTU of the 802.1ad VLAN device to
>>> the lower device'e MTU - 4 unless a MTU has been specified by the user.
>>>
>>
>> The decrease of vlan mtu was my initial take on this as well.  The
>> problematic case with this is forwarding by an encapsulating
>> bridge (bridge that has 802.1AD as one port and ethX as others). The
>> frame from ethX will not fit into the mtu of the vlan device in
>> this case and the packet is dropped.  Ideally, we'd generate and ICMP
>> Too Big, but with the bridge we can't/don't do that.
>>
>> Another problem is that linux assumes that MTU == MRU in case of
>> device receive buffer programming.  Thus, full sized 802.1AD
>> frames transmitted by the switch supporting it will probably get dropped
>> by the driver/firmware as too long.  I've tested this and saw it
>> happen on my systems.
>>
>> An alternative I've thought off is to adjust the rx size in the drivers
>> when 802.1AD is configured, but that touches all the drivers, and
>> doesn't work well for not vlan-filtering drivers.  It needs a new
>> ndo api to adjust the rx length to make it consistent across all
>> devices.
>>
>>> BTW, I couldn't find anything related to MTU handling in the 802.1ad
>>> standard, however I only have an old copy and might have looked in the
>>> wrong place. Do you have any information how this is supposed to be
>>> handled?
>>>
>>
>> The standard doesn't seem to mention anything about it, but looking
>> at switch implementations, most of them require a bump in the mtu to
>> 1504 to support 802.1AD.  Some allow for the decrease in vlan mtu, but
>> that also requires mss translations as well.
> 
> 802.1ad was merged into 802.1Q-2011, and G.2.2 in it refers to maximum
> pdu size. However, this doesn't seem to mention the case where frames
> are double tagged.
> 
> MEF 6.1 requires UNI MTU size >= 1522 and MEF 31 requires E-NNI MTU size
>> = 1526 (In these documents, MTU seems to mean frame size).
> This implies that we should allow 1508 bytes of MTU size when we use
> 802.1AD.
> 

1522 = 1500 + 14 + 4 (.1Q) + 4 (FCS)

> Is 1504 enough?

1526 = 1500 + 14 +4 (.1Q) + 4 (.1AD) + 4(FCS)

This is why Cisco docs recommend mtu of 1504.

Of course this doesn't in any way account for stacked .1AD tags.

-vlad

> 
> Thanks,
> Toshiaki Makita
> 

--
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