[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEh+42jv0Udt1b+e877EpE19V75m50+pEd1Hup=Dee61w_JqMg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 08:20:23 -0800
From: Jesse Gross <jesse@...nel.org>
To: David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
John Linville <linville@...driver.com>,
Anjali Singhai Jain <anjali.singhai@...el.com>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Kiran Patil <kiran.patil@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] net: Generalize udp based tunnel offload
On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 7:02 PM, David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
> On 12/6/15 6:20 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>
>> That works for Linux to Linux, but what about the cases where you have
>> a non-Linux endpoint on the other end such as something like a Cisco
>> switch?
>
>
> Why does is matter what kind of switch the NIC is connected to?
I think Cisco was just an example, not anything particular about their
switches. But there are two general problems:
* Some protocols, like VXLAN, recommend that the UDP checksum be zero
so this is what pretty much everyone implements. As a result,
independent of the merits of using the checksum, most non-Linux
endpoints won't support it.
* The reason why this recommendation exists in the first place is that
most ASIC based switches can't compute/verify UDP checksums. They
slice off the headers and only run that through the chip's core
memory, so the rest of the packet isn't available to compute a
checksum over.
--
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