On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 03:44:53PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 03:01:51PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com>
> > Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:55:33 -0700
> >
> > > If in the future mlx will make it into the nic in a way that
> > > encryption shares all memory management logic and there is no fpga
> > > at all then it indeed will be similar to tc offload. Right now it's
> > > not and needs different sw architecture.
> >
> > If the visible effect is identical, I fundamentally disagree with you.
> >
> > I don't care if there is a frog sitting on the PHY that transforms
> > the packets, it's all the same if the visible behavior is identical.
>
> that frog is a good example why we disagree.
> I need to check the pulse of that frog and last time it ate.
It is probably over-engineered for a single frog, but maybe you could
use a modified RFC 2795?
Andrew
