On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote:
> I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with aggregating TCP > segments in VXLAN that are not destined for the local host. This is > conceptually the same as doing aggregation for TCP packets where we > only perform L2 bridging - in theory we shouldn't look at the upper > layers but it is fine as long as we faithfully reconstruct it on the > way out. > But you don't faithfully reconstruct what the user originally sent - in-path reassembly is always wrong, which is why hardware switches don't do it (by default, anyhow). If you configure a middlebox to do some kind of assembly/translation/whatever work for you, that's fine, but something that advertises itself as a "switch" or "router" should definitely not do this by default. If you reassemble frames you completely obviate any kind of PMTU-D or configured MTU that your user is using, and this breaks a lot of paths. We completely disable all GRO/TSO/etc., but if you are able to determine that a packet is not destined for the local host you should definitely not mutate it. -- Nick
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
