| From: Jakub Kicinski <kubak...@wp.pl>
| Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 6:00 PM
|
| On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 14:47:51 -0700, Dustin Byford wrote:
| >
| > You're not the first, or the second to ask that question. I agree it
| > could use clarification.
| >
| > I always read auto in this context as automatic rather than autoneg.
| > The best I can come up with is to perhaps fully spell out "automatic" in
| > the documentation and the associated uapi enums. It's accurate, and
| > hopefully different enough from "autoneg" to hint people away from the
| > IEEE autoneg concept.
|
| So perhaps just "default"? Even saying something like ieee-selected
| doesn't really help, because apparently there are two autonegs defined
| - IEEE one and a "consortium" one...
First, sorry for the extreme delay in responding. I was at the {25,100}Gb/s
Ethernet "Plug Fest" all last week and then the holiday weekend added to the
delay.
As Dustin notes, you're not the first to be confused by the use of the term
"auto". It absolutely means. It essentially means: "Use standard FEC settings
as specified by IEEE 802.3 interpretations of Cable Transceiver Module
parameters." But this is quite a mouthful. In this sense, "auto" means
"automatic".
Other keywords which we bandied about included: standard, default, ieee,
ieee802.3, ieee802.3-default, transceiver-default, etc. As you can see, the
quest to make the option more obvious lead to increasing verbosity.
I think that in the end, we decided to go with a moderately short keyword with
tons of documentation to make the meaning clear.
By the way, this isn't the end of this problem. The new QSFP28 and SFP28 Port
Types have introduced a problem which no one has ever seen with any preceding
network technology. With all previous networking technologies, a driver could
look at an adapter Port Type and know what its Port Capabilities were in terms
of Speeds, etc. and those Port Capabilities would never change. With the new
QSFP28 and SFP28 Port Types, the Physical Port Capabilities can change based on
what Transceiver Modules you plug in. For instance, with one QSFP28
Transceiver Module you might see {100,50,25}Gb/s and with a different one
{40,10}Gb/s. One Transceiver Module might support Reed-Solomon Forward Error
Correction and another might also support BaseR/Reed-Solomon.
For the proposed FEC controls, we've tried to cope with this by having this
"Automatic IEEE802.3 Transceiver Module-dictated FEC" via the "auto" selection
(where most users will leave it we hope). This allows the Firmware/Host Driver
to automatically track the FEC needs of the currently plugged in Transceiver
Module.
However, the first question which pops up is: what happens if a user explicitly
selects a particular FEC for from the set offered by the current Transceiver
Module, and then swap out Transceiver Modules to one which doesn't support that
FEC? Does the OS/Driver/Firmware "forget" the user's FEC setting? Does it
respect it and potentially not get a link established? Do we "temporarily" put
the user's FEC setting aside? Or do we have FEC settings per-Transceiver
Module Type? Each choice has downsides in terms of "expected behavior" and the
complexity of the abstraction model offered to the user.
In our discussions of the above, we decided that we should err in the direction
of the absolutely simplest abstraction model, even when that might result in a
failure to establish a link. Our feeling was that doing anything else would
result in endless user confusion. Basically, if it takes longer than a simple
paragraph to explain, you're probably doing the wrong thing. So, we decided
that if a user sets up a particular FEC setting, we keep that regardless of
conflict with different Transceiver Modules. (But flag such issues in the
System Log in order to try to give the user a chance to understand what the new
cable they plugged in wasn't working.)
As noted above, the "auto" FEC setting solves the problem of automatically
tracking the FEC needs of whatever Transceiver Module happens to be plugged in.
And now with QSFP28 and SFP28, we have the same issue with possible Speeds (and
other Link Parameters). It may well be that we're going to need to extend this
idea into Link Speeds.
Casey
