On 02/23/2016 08:47 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:
Right, GRO should probably not coalesce packets with non-zero IP
identifiers due to the loss of information. Besides that, RFC6848 says
the IP identifier should only be set for fragmentation anyway so there
shouldn't be any issue and really no need for HW TSO (or LRO) to
support that.
You sure that is RFC 6848 "Specifying Civic Address Extensions in the
Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO)" ?
In whichever RFC that may be, is it a SHOULD or a MUST, and just how
many "other" stacks might be setting a non-zero IP ID on fragments with
DF set?
rick jones
We need to do increment IP identifier in UFO, but I only see one
device (neterion) that advertises NETIF_F_UFO-- honestly, removing
that feature might be another good simplification!
Tom
--
-Ed
