| To: | Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH][RFC] etherip: Ethernet-in-IPv4 tunneling |
| From: | Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 13 Jan 2005 01:36:25 +0100 |
| Cc: | Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, shemminger@xxxxxxxx, shollenbeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050113002806.GN26856@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20050112222437.GC14280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41E5A7E9.4030101@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050112224810.GE14280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41E5AEAC.8060706@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050112231615.GF14280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050112234344.GM26856@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050113001837.GH14280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050113002806.GN26856@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.1i |
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:28:06AM +0100, Thomas Graf wrote: > > What's that? I can't find it in my kernel tree nor on google. > > Typo, sorry. I meant ip_tunnel_parm. Thinking of it, shouldn't protocol > in ip_tunnel_parm->iph->protocol be set to ETHER_IP so userspace could > find out this way? ip_tunnel_parm->iph->protocol for ether/ip tunnels is IPPROTO_ETHERIP, which is 97. So yeah, the info is in there. But this doesn't help you much in determining whether an arbitrary network device is in fact an ether/ip tunnel or not, since SIOCGETTUNNEL aliases with SIOCDEVPRIVATE+3. The only way to make it stand out would be to give it its own ARPHRD_ type, but then it wouldn't look like an ethernet device anymore. cheers, Lennert |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH][RFC] etherip: Ethernet-in-IPv4 tunneling, Lennert Buytenhek |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH][RFC] etherip: Ethernet-in-IPv4 tunneling, Thomas Graf |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH][RFC] etherip: Ethernet-in-IPv4 tunneling, Thomas Graf |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH][RFC] etherip: Ethernet-in-IPv4 tunneling, Thomas Graf |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |