On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 8:33 AM Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leit...@gmail.com> wrote: > I still don't understand Cong's argument for not having this on > act_mirred because TC is L2. That's actually not right. TC hooks at L2
You miss a very important point that it is already too late to rename act_mirred to reflect whatever new feature adding to it. > but deals with L3 and L4 (after all, it does static NAT, mungles L4 > headers and classifies based on virtually anything) since beginning, > and this is just another case. So eventually you want TC to deal with all L3 stuff?? I think you are exaggerating it, modifying L3/L4 headers does not mean it handles L3 protocol. But, doing IP layer fragmentation is clearly doing something belongs to IP protocol. Look at the code, you never need to call into IP layer code (except some trivial helpers) until you do CT or fragmentation. This is why I do not like act_ct either, it fits oddly into TC. Why not just do segmentation instead of fragmentation? GSO is already performed at L2 by software. Thanks.
