netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH][RFC] etherip: Ethernet-in-IPv4 tunneling

To: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] etherip: Ethernet-in-IPv4 tunneling
From: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:48:10 +0100
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, shemminger@xxxxxxxx, rhousley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, shollenbeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <41E5A7E9.4030101@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20050112222437.GC14280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41E5A7E9.4030101@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 02:42:49PM -0800, Ben Greear wrote:

> Why do you add a single device when loading the module?  Is this just
> so you have something to hook the ioctl to?
> 
> My personal preference would be something where you do not automatically
> create an etherip0, but would have an etherip-config tool or similar to
> create/destroy interfaces.

I modelled this after the way ipip/gre/sit do things -- they create
tunl0/gre0/sit0, and have 'ip tunnel' send its ioctls to those devices.

I wouldn't mind changing this to another mechanism, but 1) we'd have to
agree on a mechanism, and 2) we'd have to change the other tunnel types
over to this mechanism as well.


> Also, could you add an ioctl that allowed one to query whether or not
> a particular device is an etherip device?  I had always wished I had added
> this earlier to the VLAN code :)

Hmmm.  Bridge devices don't have this either, do they?  Can you name
an advantage of having this?


cheers,
Lennert

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>