On Apr 26, 2012, at 11:13 AM, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:17:25AM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 1:39 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
Hi Kyle,
the component that is of most interest
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:17:25AM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 1:39 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Kyle,
>> >
>> > the component that is of most interest to me is enabling OVS to use in-tree
>> > tunnelling cod
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:17:25AM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 1:39 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
> >
> > Hi Kyle,
> >
> > the component that is of most interest to me is enabling OVS to use in-tree
> > tunnelling code - as it seems that makes most sense for an implementation
> >
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 1:39 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 04:02:41PM +, Kyle Mestery (kmestery) wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 2012, at 9:25 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 03:59:24PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Simon Horman
On Apr 25, 2012, at 3:39 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 04:02:41PM +, Kyle Mestery (kmestery) wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 2012, at 9:25 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 03:59:24PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 04:02:41PM +, Kyle Mestery (kmestery) wrote:
> On Apr 23, 2012, at 9:25 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 03:59:24PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 02:38:07PM -0700, Jes
On Apr 24, 2012, at 11:13 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:02:41 +
> "Kyle Mestery (kmestery)" wrote:
>
>> On Apr 23, 2012, at 9:25 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 03:59:24PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Simon Horman
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:02:41 +
"Kyle Mestery (kmestery)" wrote:
> On Apr 23, 2012, at 9:25 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 03:59:24PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 02:38:07PM -0700, Jesse
On Apr 23, 2012, at 9:25 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 03:59:24PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 02:38:07PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 2:08 PM, David Miller wrote:
>
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 09:40:57PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 03:59:24PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Simon Horman
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 02:38:07PM -0700, Jesse Gross wr
- Original Message -
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 03:59:24PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Simon Horman
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 02:38:07PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 2:08 PM, David Miller
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 03:59:24PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 02:38:07PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 2:08 PM, David Miller wrote:
> >> > From: Jesse Gross
> >> > Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 02:38:07PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 2:08 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> > From: Jesse Gross
>> > Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:53:42 -0700
>> >
>> >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:13 PM, David Miller
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 02:38:07PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 2:08 PM, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Jesse Gross
> > Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:53:42 -0700
> >
> >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:13 PM, David Miller wrote:
> >>> From: Jesse Gross
> >>> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 2:08 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jesse Gross
> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:53:42 -0700
>
>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:13 PM, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Jesse Gross
>>> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:08:49 -0700
>>>
Assuming that the TCP stack generates large TSO fra
From: Jesse Gross
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:53:42 -0700
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:13 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Jesse Gross
>> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:08:49 -0700
>>
>>> Assuming that the TCP stack generates large TSO frames on transmit
>>> (which could be the local stack; something s
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:13 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jesse Gross
> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:08:49 -0700
>
>> Assuming that the TCP stack generates large TSO frames on transmit
>> (which could be the local stack; something sent by a VM; or packets
>> received, coalesced by GRO and then en
From: Jesse Gross
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:08:49 -0700
> Assuming that the TCP stack generates large TSO frames on transmit
> (which could be the local stack; something sent by a VM; or packets
> received, coalesced by GRO and then encapsulated by STT) then you can
> just prepend the STT header
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Stephen Hemminger
wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:15:33 -0400 (EDT)
> David Miller wrote:
>
>> From: Simon Horman
>> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:30:08 +0900
>>
>> > I'm pretty sure the patch I posted added encap_rcv to tcp_sock.
>> > Am I missing the point?
>>
>>
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:15:33 -0400 (EDT)
David Miller wrote:
> From: Simon Horman
> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:30:08 +0900
>
> > I'm pretty sure the patch I posted added encap_rcv to tcp_sock.
> > Am I missing the point?
>
> It did, my eyes are failing me :-)
>
> > Currently I am setting up a
From: Simon Horman
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:30:08 +0900
> I'm pretty sure the patch I posted added encap_rcv to tcp_sock.
> Am I missing the point?
It did, my eyes are failing me :-)
> Currently I am setting up a listening socket. The Open vSwtich tunneling
> code transmits skbs and using eith
From: Simon Horman
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:14:02 +0900
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 11:54:42AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
>> On Sun, 2012-04-22 at 08:22 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>
>> > STT isn't really doing TCP, it just lying and pretending to be
>> > TCP to allow TSO to work! There
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 11:54:42AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-04-22 at 08:22 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
> > STT isn't really doing TCP, it just lying and pretending to be
> > TCP to allow TSO to work! There is no packet ordering, sequence
> > numbers or any real transport
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 08:24:35AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
>
> > This hook is based on a hook of the same name provided by UDP. It
> > provides
> > a way for to receive packets that have a TCP header and treat them in
> > some
> > alternate way.
> >
> > It is intended to be used by an
From: Jamal Hadi Salim
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 11:54:42 -0400
> On Sun, 2012-04-22 at 08:22 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
>> Therefore Simon's
>> proposed hook is the only way to support it. But exposing that
>> hook does allow for other misuse.
>
> If you object to this, then you gotta obje
On Sun, 2012-04-22 at 08:22 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> STT isn't really doing TCP, it just lying and pretending to be
> TCP to allow TSO to work! There is no packet ordering, sequence
> numbers or any real transport layer.
True. It is a nice engineering hack but even as a protocol enhance
> This hook is based on a hook of the same name provided by UDP. It
> provides
> a way for to receive packets that have a TCP header and treat them in
> some
> alternate way.
>
> It is intended to be used by an implementation of the STT tunneling
> protocol within Open vSwtich's datapath. A pro
> From: Simon Horman
> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:53:35 +0900
>
> > This hook is based on a hook of the same name provided by UDP. It
> > provides
> > a way for to receive packets that have a TCP header and treat them
> > in some
> > alternate way.
> >
> > It is intended to be used by an implem
From: Simon Horman
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:53:35 +0900
> This hook is based on a hook of the same name provided by UDP. It provides
> a way for to receive packets that have a TCP header and treat them in some
> alternate way.
>
> It is intended to be used by an implementation of the STT tunne
This hook is based on a hook of the same name provided by UDP. It provides
a way for to receive packets that have a TCP header and treat them in some
alternate way.
It is intended to be used by an implementation of the STT tunneling
protocol within Open vSwtich's datapath. A prototype of such an
30 matches
Mail list logo
