From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: TOE, etc. Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 21:43:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20060627.214323.92582051.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20060628033708.GA4922@gondor.apana.org.au> <44A20311.5050301@pobox.com> <20060628042959.GA5561@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jgarzik@pobox.com, swise@opengridcomputing.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from dsl027-180-168.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.27.180.168]:10939 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423094AbWF1EnZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:43:25 -0400 To: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au In-Reply-To: <20060628042959.GA5561@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Herbert Xu Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:29:59 +1000 > On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 12:18:25AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > > A PCI device that presents itself as a SCSI controller, but under the > > hood is really iSCSI-over-TCP smells like TOE. Running a virtualized > > Linux guest on top of a proprietary stack [which provides networking > > services to guests] also smells like TOE. :) > > Agreed. However, when they start adding hooks to the ARP table, the > routing table, and PMTU management, it begs the question what more is > there to add for TOE (well, user-space driven TOE at least)? Socket state, and that is one thing I don't see them doing yet. > Put it another way, I think the dividing line between TOE and iSCSI or > virtualisation is exactly the interface between them and the Linux kernel. > If the interface is an existing one such as SCSI or standard IP then it's > OK. However, when it starts poking in the guts of the Linux stack I'd say > that it has crossed the line. Yeah, it's starting to smell really bad. But we have to realize they've already been given %95 of the interfaces they need to speak IP using our routes and our neighbour entries. Right?