| To: | Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH][RFC] etherip: Ethernet-in-IPv4 tunneling |
| From: | Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:16:15 +0100 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, shemminger@xxxxxxxx, shollenbeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <41E5AEAC.8060706@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20050112222437.GC14280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41E5A7E9.4030101@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050112224810.GE14280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41E5AEAC.8060706@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.1i |
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 03:11:40PM -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > >>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? > > I got the request several times with regard to VLANs. Lots of people > (and applications) will want to know the interface type for various > reasons. If you don't give them a nice programatic thing like an > IOCTL to call, they will undoubtedly start making assumptions based > off of the device name... Makes sense.. Unfortunately SIOCGETTUNNEL is (SIOCDEVPRIVATE + 3), otherwise we could just say something like "If an ARPHRD_ETHER device supports SIOCGETTUNNEL, it's an ether/ip tunnel." Any better ideas? I hate adding more ioctls. cheers, Lennert |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH][RFC] etherip: Ethernet-in-IPv4 tunneling, Ben Greear |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: V2.4 policy router operates faster/better than V2.6, Robert Olsson |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH][RFC] etherip: Ethernet-in-IPv4 tunneling, Ben Greear |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH][RFC] etherip: Ethernet-in-IPv4 tunneling, Thomas Graf |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |