Re: [Tofoo] FW: I-D Action: draft-zhou-li-vxlan-soe-01.txt

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Thu, 22 May 2014 18:50 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: tofoo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tofoo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1594C1A02DD; Thu, 22 May 2014 11:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z9kp8IOC1JSz; Thu, 22 May 2014 11:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from darkstar.isi.edu (darkstar.isi.edu [128.9.128.127]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45E481A02B2; Thu, 22 May 2014 11:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.160.81] (nib.isi.edu [128.9.160.81]) (authenticated bits=0) by darkstar.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s4MIo4Wl027758 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 22 May 2014 11:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <537E46DC.9000303@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 11:50:04 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Herbert <therbert@google.com>
References: <20140502120923.9835.17537.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9F56174078B48B459268EFF1DAB66B1A109C2DD3@DEN-EXDDA-S32.corp.ebay.com> <537B90C9.1090003@isi.edu> <9F56174078B48B459268EFF1DAB66B1A109C36FC@DEN-EXDDA-S32.corp.ebay.com> <537BFDF4.9030300@isi.edu> <CA+mtBx9+7hC5p+3djpLVQ2upx-rs7iE2ms0mET4AoC6uZ1LWnQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+mtBx9+7hC5p+3djpLVQ2upx-rs7iE2ms0mET4AoC6uZ1LWnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tofoo/y56sKCok8t_M_rkg8co0CwWhrqQ
Cc: "Zhou, Han" <hzhou8@ebay.com>, Erik Nordmark <nordmark@sonic.net>, "tofoo@ietf.org" <tofoo@ietf.org>, "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org>, "draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan@tools.ietf.org" <draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-zhou-li-vxlan-soe@tools.ietf.org" <draft-zhou-li-vxlan-soe@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Tofoo] FW: I-D Action: draft-zhou-li-vxlan-soe-01.txt
X-BeenThere: tofoo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for Tunneling over Foo \(with\)in IP networks \(TOFOO\)." <tofoo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tofoo>, <mailto:tofoo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tofoo/>
List-Post: <mailto:tofoo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tofoo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tofoo>, <mailto:tofoo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 18:50:39 -0000


On 5/22/2014 11:43 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu
> <mailto:touch@isi.edu>> wrote:
>
>     Hi, Han,
>
>     This helps, but doesn't quite address my concern.
>
>     TCP offloading is fine when the OS hands off user data, and the
>     offload engine creates the entire segment.
>
> This would essentially be TOE.
>
>     The situation you're describing seems to be a hybrid, where the
>     guest OS makes a TCP segment, and then something lower (in the VM
>     system) parses that segment to create one or more segments on the wire.
>
> This how Linux and probably about every NIC implements TCP segmentation
> offload. A large TCP segment is broken up into MSS sized segments (MSS
> is provided in ancillary data). The process replicates the IP/TCP
> headers per packet, adjusts the length, sequence numbers, and computes
> checksum for each segment.  There's no special handling of any options,
> it is assumed they can be replicated in each segment.

That's an incorrect assumption.

>     If that happens, it will be incompatible with a number of existing
>     TCP options, and will also cause side-effects with ACK clocking,
>     timeouts, and more than a few other TCP features.
>
>
>     Although I appreciate the goal of efficiency and speed, there is a
>     severe compatibility issue that doesn't seem to be addressed.
>
> TCP segmentation offload is already widely deployed. Since this draft
> would be using the same mechanism it's unlikely to create new
> compatibility issues except for the fact that the segmentation might be
> deferred to an off host entity which is a new concept that would
> probably have side effects.

IMO, this draft should not rely on or further promote a mechanism with 
known problems.

Joe