From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Hutchings Subject: RE: Question regarding protocol specific mtu for FCoE Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 20:27:25 +0100 Message-ID: <1244057245.3191.17.camel@achroite> References: <7C88852EF6F99F4EB538472FCFEBE2223A7E6F45@orsmsx509.amr.corp.intel.com> <4A26BAF7.3070301@hp.com> <7C88852EF6F99F4EB538472FCFEBE2223A7E6FBD@orsmsx509.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Rick Jones , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "Leech, Christopher" , "Dev, Vasu" , "Love, Robert W" , "Ma, Steve" , "Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" , "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" To: "Zou, Yi" Return-path: Received: from smarthost02.mail.zen.net.uk ([212.23.3.141]:48655 "EHLO smarthost02.mail.zen.net.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750968AbZFCT13 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jun 2009 15:27:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: <7C88852EF6F99F4EB538472FCFEBE2223A7E6FBD@orsmsx509.amr.corp.intel.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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. -- Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.