Date:	Mon, 07 Apr 2014 00:21:55 +0900
From:	Toshiaki Makita <toshiaki.makita1@...il.com>
To:	vyasevic@...hat.com
Cc:	Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp>,
	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 Fri, 2014-04-04 at 11:22 -0400, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> On 04/04/2014 11:08 AM, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 09:07 -0400, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> >> On 04/03/2014 04:32 AM, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
> >>> (2014/04/03 1:44), Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> >>>> 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)
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for the supplementation.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> This is why Cisco docs recommend mtu of 1504.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course this doesn't in any way account for stacked .1AD tags.
> >>>
> >>> So we are likely to receive 1508 (1526) sized frames in 802.1ad network.
> >>
> >> 1526 byte frame is 1504 mtu, as demonstrated above.
> > 
> > Not so sure.
> > It's true only if NIC reserves extra 4 bytes for mtu.
> 
> Pretty much all drivers reserve extra 4 bytes for the .1Q header.

Looking over some drivers, as you say, most drivers do it.
But I couldn't find extra room for vlan header in cxgb.

Also, some drivers don't seem to like this approach...
bnx2x already reserves 8 bytes for vlans.
qlge accepts only 1500 or 9000 mtu (and maybe 1500 setting allows up to
2048 frame size?)

> 
> > If the outer 802.1ad tag is not recognized as a vlan tag by NIC, both
> > the outer tag and the inner tag are not ethernet header but payload to
> > the NIC.
> 
> But the nic doesn't really care about MTU values itself.  It uses it
> to compute the frame length that it will support for rx and tx.  That
> computation is what the above math shows.
> 
> So, the nics that do not support .1AD acceleration (the ones you
> mentioned above), will already account for the .1Q header, but the MTU
> (payload) needs to increased by 4 bytes to account for .1AD header.
> We don't have to account for .1Q header again.

Fair enough.

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