Re: [PATCH net-next] net/gtp: Add udp source port generation according to flow hash

From: Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@gmail.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Andreas Schultz <aschultz@tpip.net>,
	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>,
	Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>,
	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@mellanox.com>,
	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>,
	laforge <laforge@gnumonks.org>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net/gtp: Add udp source port generation according to flow hash
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 18:14:02 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJ3xEMiF_T_JxTik+yxvYoBQCiG=kKzukSsORApKB9nhTSvqeQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170223.125401.1794857404908689667.davem@davemloft.net>

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 7:54 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: Andreas Schultz <aschultz@tpip.net>
> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:19:16 +0100 (CET)
>
>> When we are talking about the xmit path, then currently none of the
>> receivers we are talking to is going to be Linux and we have no
>> idea how they will behave nor do we have any influence on them. Do
>> we really need to make assumptions about other vendors implementations?
>>
>> Traces on live GRX networks show that about 90% of the SGSN/S-GW
>> that would talk to us always use the default GTP-U port as source
>> port. Some multi chassis GSN's seem to assign source port ranges to
>> chassis, but that has nothing todo with DDOS protection.
>
> This is exactly what other UDP tunnel implementations did before
> flow separation was prevelant.
>
> I don't see the point of any of this discussion discouraging the
> enablement of proper flow separation.

Hi Dave,

So where do we  go from here? should I resubmit the patch?

Or.