Re: [Intel-wired-lan] i40e X722 RSS problem with NAT-Traversal IPsec packets
From: Lennart Sorensen
Date: Thu May 02 2019 - 14:53:18 EST
On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 01:55:13PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> Here is the same packets as before with the link level header included
> (I forgot to use -XX rather than -X):
>
> 13:43:49.081567 54:ee:75:30:f1:e1 > a4:bf:01:4e:0c:87, ethertype IPv4 (0x0800), length 174: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 21783, offset 0, flags [DF], proto UDP (17), length 160)
> 1.99.99.2.4500 > 1.99.99.1.4500: [no cksum] UDP-encap: ESP(spi=0x8de82290,seq=0x6a56), length 132
> 0x0000: a4bf 014e 0c87 54ee 7530 f1e1 0800 4500 ...N..T.u0....E.
> 0x0010: 00a0 5517 4000 4011 1c6d 0163 6302 0163 ..U.@.@..m.cc..c
> 0x0020: 6301 1194 1194 008c 0000 8de8 2290 0000 c..........."...
> 0x0030: 6a56 72da 0734 52f6 406e 9346 f946 c698 jVr..4R.@xxxxxxx
> 0x0040: a38c 280c 94da 53e1 91e0 35bf 812a 4500 ..(...S...5..*E.
> 0x0050: 6003 ca7d 6872 a50b d41a 5c4d 7c22 3fb8 `..}hr....\M|"?.
> 0x0060: 56d8 2a0f bc3f d3a6 5853 682c 914c c1b1 V.*..?..XSh,.L..
> 0x0070: c5c3 94e8 4789 d8b4 4ab4 e5f9 d20a e5ef ....G...J.......
> 0x0080: de1d 05dd e98a 996b 5c11 6657 b667 6af1 .......k\.fW.gj.
> 0x0090: 2a97 694b 16de 74e2 f8fe 13a3 d45e e3e9 *.iK..t......^..
> 0x00a0: f0b1 b83b 99e3 55cb b40b 5ba8 9c23 ...;..U...[..#
> 13:43:49.081658 a4:bf:01:4e:0c:87 > 54:ee:75:30:f1:e1, ethertype IPv4 (0x0800), length 174: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 44552, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 160)
> 1.99.99.1.4500 > 1.99.99.2.4500: [no cksum] UDP-encap: ESP(spi=0x1d4ecfdf,seq=0x6a56), length 132
> 0x0000: 54ee 7530 f1e1 a4bf 014e 0c87 0800 4500 T.u0.....N....E.
> 0x0010: 00a0 ae08 0000 4011 037c 0163 6301 0163 ......@..|.cc..c
> 0x0020: 6302 1194 1194 008c 0000 1d4e cfdf 0000 c..........N....
> 0x0030: 6a56 28ca 4809 8933 911d f2be 4510 e757 jV(.H..3....E..W
> 0x0040: 3885 7d26 5238 8c58 38e3 6c07 2f8e 335a 8.}&R8.X8.l./.3Z
> 0x0050: 6d48 2a72 4619 e8a3 c421 bc54 48b2 6239 mH*rF....!.TH.b9
> 0x0060: 5e07 7e89 a68e 0161 4e6a 5b6f 8b89 9f53 ^.~....aNj[o...S
> 0x0070: 4c40 1c6c d159 60f8 68e7 24db 8b21 2ec2 L@.l.Y`.h.$..!..
> 0x0080: 4b67 9b83 643b b0ac 6e2d bf4f 1ee1 9508 Kg..d;..n-.O....
> 0x0090: d1bd dcd4 74ee e4dc 78d0 578a 5905 1f4d ....t...x.W.Y..M
> 0x00a0: 74be e643 910b b4d3 f428 8822 e22b t..C.....(.".+
>
> I will try to see what I can do with netperf.
Hmm, maybe UDP isn't doing as well as I thought.
Playing with packit doing this:
packit -t UDP -d 1.99.99.1 -D 32432 -S 4500 -i enp0s25 -h -p "0x 00 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 00 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 00 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99" -c 5
I have played with the source and destination port numbers, and so far
I have only managed to hit queues 0, 1 and 2 (mostly 0 and 2). No port
number I have tried has made it hit any other queue. That is weird.
Making random changes ought to distribute more than that. And changing
the hkey certainly ought to make a difference, and so far it doesn't
seem to for these packets (I know I saw icmp move around just fine before
when changing the hkey).
--
Len Sorensen