>On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 13:43 -0700, Zou, Yi wrote: >> >On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 12:16 -0700, Zou, Yi wrote: >> >[...] >> >> FCoE is on L2 layer, no path specific MTU, everything goes out as >> >> whatever mtu known to the nic. Since the nic is expected to be >used >> >for >> >> converged traffic involving multiple traffic types, e.g. LAN, FCoE, >I >> >> was wondering if it makes sense to have the additional MTU. >> >Essentially, >> >> the nic driver will be able to setup via netdev for different MTUs >> >for >> >> converged traffic. >> > >> >Wouldn't you use separate VLANs for FCoE and other traffic? So >maybe >> >we >> >should allow for per-VLAN rather than per-protocol MTU. >> > >> >Ben. >> > >> From what I can tell, you will not be able to set vlan device's MTU >> that is larger than the real_dev->mtu, as in vlan_dev_change_mtu(). > >Yes, I know this restriction exists at the moment. But the device MTU >(the limit for dependent virtual devices) could perhaps be decoupled >from the interface MTU (the limit for protocols) and automatically >raised when necessary. I think something like that is necessary for >your proposal too. > >Ben. Well, for all all NIC devices that are capable of doing converged traffic, the additional MTU seems to me fits just what you mentioned as the automatic MTU increase, since a different MTU is checked. Of course, the vlan above needs to be also fixed to allow this as well. Also, FCoE should not required to be created only on a VLAN interface. Thanks. yi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
