On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:58 AM Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:31:17AM -0700, Darrell Ball wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:09 AM Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 08:46:06AM -0700, Darrell Ball wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 9:51 AM Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 09, 2019 at 07:35:09AM -0700, Darrell Ball wrote: > > > > > > This may be needed in some special cases, such as to support some > > > > > > hardware offload implementations. > > > > > > > > > > > > Reported-at: > > > > > > https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2019-May/359188.html > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Darrell Ball <[email protected]> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > v2: Per particular requirement, support 'no-tcp-seq-chk' rather > than > > > > > > 'liberal' mode. > > > > > > > > > > > > Add some debug counters. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure whether an ovs-appctl command is the best way for > users to > > > > > enable and disable this. It means that it is difficult for an > OpenFlow > > > > > controller to do it, since those commands aren't exposed via > OpenFlow > > > or > > > > > OVSDB. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your comments > > > > > > > > For local controller usage, we are using ovs-appctl today in similar > > > cases > > > > for existing products. > > > > > > > > In the case of non-local controller usage, the remote controller > would > > > need > > > > remote access. > > > > > > > > However, in this case, I don't expect the remote controller to be > > > > involved; I was assuming > > > > that a deployment script would be used to set the value to > non-default > > > > value (in needed cases) > > > > when ovs-vswitchd is (re)started only. If this assumption cannot be > > > > satisfied then we would > > > > have to have to introduce a dependency on the database for these > types of > > > > commands. > > > > > > This seems to be teetering toward the pre-SDN model of having to > > > separately configure each switch. Do you have some rationale in mind > > > why this should be a per-node decision rather than one made by the > > > controller? > > > > > > 1/ Because of the reduced security implications vs higher performance > > advantage, it would be a per node (or per node role) decision of whether > > to use it or not. > > Are you saying that the only advantage of disabling TCP sequence > checking is performance, and only in the presence of hardware for > offloading that requires it?
Some HWOL implementations would be the most common 'recommended' usage. I will be adding a general statement to the documentation and will echo it in the commit message. > This has not been clear to me. If that is > the case, then I can see that this would be a local decision, because > one would want to disable TCP sequence checking only on a system with > the given hardware. > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
