| To: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH][RFC] etherip: Ethernet-in-IPv4 tunneling |
| From: | Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:02:27 +0100 |
| Cc: | Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, shemminger@xxxxxxxx, shollenbeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1105897020.1091.736.camel@jzny.localdomain> |
| References: | <20050112222437.GC14280@xi.wantstofly.org> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0501130944270.19573@netcore.fi> <20050113092351.GA23170@xi.wantstofly.org> <1105897020.1091.736.camel@jzny.localdomain> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.1i |
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 12:37:00PM -0500, jamal wrote: > > > Is there a particular reason why GRE tunnel is not sufficient? > > > > No particular reason, apart from not being aware that GRE provides > > this functionality. > > True that GRE can do all this (and they have thought out well the > broadcasting etc) but i dont think it will harm to push this into the > kernel if some odd OS like openbsd supports it. Apparently they mis-read the RFC and write the etherip header as 0x0300 instead of 0x3000 (they have the version nibble in the wrong place.) This would likely prevent interoperability. cheers, Lennert |
| Previous by Date: | Re: patch: namsiz, Thomas Graf |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: patch: namsiz, Jamal Hadi Salim |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: tunneling in linux (was: Re: [PATCH][RFC] etherip: Ethernet-in-IPv4 tunneling), jamal |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH][RFC] etherip: Ethernet-in-IPv4 tunneling, jamal |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |