From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267638AbTGOMld (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:41:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267590AbTGOMlc (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:41:32 -0400 Received: from 34.mufa.noln.chcgil24.dsl.att.net ([12.100.181.34]:1017 "EHLO tabby.cats.internal") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267638AbTGOM1h (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:27:37 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Jesse Pollard To: Jeff Garzik , David griego Subject: Re: Alan Shih: "TCP IP Offloading Interface" Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 07:42:01 -0500 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] Cc: alan@storlinksemi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <3F1303FA.8080706@pobox.com> In-Reply-To: <3F1303FA.8080706@pobox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <03071507420100.27793@tabby> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday 14 July 2003 14:26, Jeff Garzik wrote: > David griego wrote: > > How does one measure the reliability and security of current software > > TCP/IP stacks? Some standard set of test would have to be identified > > and the TOEs would need to be tested against this to ensure that they > > meet some minimum standard. I would suggest offloading the minimum > > amount from the OS so that most of the control could be maintaind by the > > OS stack. This also would make failover/routing changes between TOE > > -TOE, and TOE-NIC easier. > > Anything beyond basic host-only TOE adds massive complexity for very > little gain: interfacing netfilter and routing code with a black box we > _hope_ will act properly sounds like suicide. > > > Current offloads such as checksum and > > > > segmentation will not be enough for 10GbE processing, so it would have > > to be something more than we have today. > > All this is vague handwaving without supporting evidence. So far we get > stuff like Internet2 speed records _without_ TOE. And Linux currently > supports 10gige... and hosts are just going to keep getting faster and > faster. > > Jeff Not to mention the problems IPSec would have with such a device.