Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v2] ethtool: ice: Support for RSS settings to GTP from ethtool

[Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 10:53:02 +0900 takeru hayasaka wrote:
> For instance, there are PGWs that have the capability to separate the
> termination of communication of 4G LTE users into Control and User
> planes (C/U).
> This is quite convenient from a scalability perspective. In fact, in
> 5G UPF, the communication is explicitly only on the User plane
> (Uplane).
> 
> Therefore, services are expected to receive only GTPU traffic (e.g.,
> PGW-U, UPF) or only GTPC traffic (e.g., PGW-C). Hence, there arises a
> necessity to use only GTPU.
> 
> If we do not distinguish packets into Control/User (C/U) with options
> like gtp4|6, I can conceive scenarios where performance tuning becomes
> challenging.
> For example, in cases where we want to process only the control
> communication (GTPC) using Flow Director on specific CPUs, while
> processing GTPU on the remaining cores.
> In scenarios like IoT, where user communication is minimal but the
> volume of devices is vast, the control traffic could substantially
> increase. Thus, this might also be possible in reverse.
> In short, this pertains to being mindful of CPU core affinity.
> 
> If we were to propose again, setting aside considerations specific to
> Intel, I believe, considering the users of ethtool, the smallest units
> should be gtpu4|6 and gtpc4|6.
> Regarding Extension Headers and such, I think it would be more
> straightforward to handle them implicitly.
> 
> What does everyone else think?

Harald went further and questioned use of the same IP addresses for 
-U and -C traffic, but even within one endpoint aren't these running
on a different port? Can someone reasonably use the same UDP port
for both types of traffic?
_______________________________________________
Intel-wired-lan mailing list
Intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan