On Tue, 2016-04-05 at 08:52 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote: > > I disagree I think it will have to be part of the default > configuration. The problem is the IP ID is quickly becoming > meaningless. When you consider that a 40Gb/s link can wrap the IP ID > value nearly 50 times a second using a 1500 MTU the IP ID field should > just be ignored anyway because you cannot guarantee that it will be > unique without limiting the Tx window size. That was the whole point > of RFC6864. Basically the IP ID field is so small that as we push > into the higher speeds you cannot guarantee that the field will have > any meaning so for any case where you don't need to use it you > shouldn't because it will likely not provide enough useful data.
Just because a few flows reach 40Gbit , we should remind that vast majority of the Internet runs with < 50Mbits flows. I prefer the argument of IPv6 not having ID ;) We should do our best to keep interoperability, this is the selling point. And quite frankly your last patch makes perfect sense to me : The aggregation is done only if the TCP headers of consecutive packets matches. So who cares of IPv4 ID really ? This is a very minor detail. The possible gains outperform the theoretical 'problem' GRO already reorder flows, it never had a guarantee of being 'ínvisible' as Herbert claims.
