From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net [23.128.96.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94FF5154AC for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2023 18:00:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=none Received: from ganesha.gnumonks.org (ganesha.gnumonks.org [IPv6:2001:780:45:1d:225:90ff:fe52:c662]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0567E126; Wed, 18 Oct 2023 11:00:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from uucp by ganesha.gnumonks.org with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1qtApx-00EjDB-RY; Wed, 18 Oct 2023 20:00:05 +0200 Received: from laforge by nataraja with local (Exim 4.97-RC2) (envelope-from ) id 1qtAnC-00000002j2L-0xli; Wed, 18 Oct 2023 19:57:14 +0200 Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 19:57:14 +0200 From: Harald Welte To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: takeru hayasaka , Jesse Brandeburg , Tony Nguyen , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Paolo Abeni , intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Willem de Bruijn , Pablo Neira Ayuso , osmocom-net-gprs@lists.osmocom.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] ethtool: ice: Support for RSS settings to GTP from ethtool Message-ID: References: <20231012060115.107183-1-hayatake396@gmail.com> <20231016152343.1fc7c7be@kernel.org> <20231017164915.23757eed@kernel.org> <20231018103703.41fd4d9b@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20231018103703.41fd4d9b@kernel.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net Hi Jakub, On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 10:37:03AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > 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? yes. > Can someone reasonably use the same UDP port for both types of traffic? I don't think so. In the entire 3GPP protocol world, the UDP port numbers for GTP-U and GTP-C are fixed. The various signaling protocols allow you to communicate the IPv4/v6 address and TEID of tunnel endpoints, but never allow you to communicate the port number - which hence must always be the well-known port (2123 for GTP-C + 2152 for GTP-U). Of course somebody could do whatever they want in some kind of internal interface not required to interoperate with any other equipment/implementation/operator, but I'd consider it not falling in your question of "reasonable use". Regards, Harald -- - Harald Welte https://laforge.gnumonks.org/ ============================================================================ "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)