[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJ3xEMjC5PQENzCXS9SNVm6zUVn7pydxf1MLQ57Br1sGjD1ngQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 21:08:13 +0300
From: Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
To: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/7] net: foo-over-udp (fou)
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 6:07 AM, Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> wrote:
[...]
> * Notes
> - This patch set does not implement GSO for FOU. The UDP encapsulation
> code assumes TEB, so that will need to be reimplemented.
Can you please clarify this point little further? Specifically, today
few NICs are
advertizing NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_TUNNEL when they are practically GSO
capable only w.r.t to VXLAN. What happens when such NIC expose this
cap and a large guest frame goes through GRE over UDP or alike tunneling?
> - I really don't expect/want devices to have special support for any
> of this. Generic checksum offload mechanisms (NETIF_HW_CSUM
> and use of CHECKSUM_COMPLETE) should be sufficient. RSS and flow
> steering is provided by commonly implemented UDP hashing. GRO/GSO
> seem fairly comparable with LRO/TSO already.
Again, today NICs are advertizing checksum offloads capability in
enc_hw_features but aren't capable to compute (say) the TCP checksum
of the inner
packet regardless of which actual tunneling is used (e.g VXLAN vs
GRE), a bit inconsistent?
--
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