> -----Original Message-----
> From: David S. Miller [mailto:davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 8:31 PM
> To: Leonid Grossman
> Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded
> On Thu, 5 May 2005 20:20:56 -0700
> "Leonid Grossman" <leonid.grossman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > We will be testing on 10GbE NICs in the next couple weeks; will let you
> > know.
> > BTW - any plans for IPv6 support?
> What exactly does your NIC expect? Do you use the
> NETIF_F_HW_CSUM flag to indicate generic checksumming support?
> Otherwise, there is no other way to support ipv6 checksum offload
> at the moment, and that is a requirement for ipv6 TSO.
> For TSO, the ipv6 header handling seems very non-trivial.
> What is supposed to happen in cases where certain optional
> extension headers should be present in some of the frames
> but not the others?
Our ASIC supports ipv6 CSUM and TSO (and header splitting) even if extension
headers are present, but I suspect the majority ipv6-capable NICs will not
implement this; the stack needs to query NIC header-processing capabilities
(for both CSUM and TSO) and act accordingly.
> A specification of how your NIC support ipv6 TSO is necessary
> in order for support to be written, see?
We are planning to release the ASIC programming manual to the community
fairly soon, this will provide a better view on IPv6 LSO and some other
>Seems like you are
> the most qualified person to write the support, therefore :-)
> Really, it isn't that hard and you have something on which
> to test whatever you write, whereas I don't.
We will probably get to it sometime down the road; at the moment support for
UDP LSO and receive side offloads are much higher on our list.
Getting a vanilla (no support for extension headers) implementation from
someone who knows the stack better than we do would be a good thing :-), I
suspect this should be useful for more than one NIC vendor.