| To: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH][RFC] etherip: Ethernet-in-IPv4 tunneling |
| From: | Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:22:54 +0100 |
| Cc: | Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, shemminger@xxxxxxxx, shollenbeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1105905906.1097.860.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> <20050116190227.GC21870@xi.wantstofly.org> <1105905906.1097.860.camel@jzny.localdomain> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.1i |
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 03:05:06PM -0500, jamal wrote: > > 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. > > Thinking about it a bit - you should be able to break yours to do 0x0300 > to test with them ;-> Etherip is a really simple standard, the header is only 16 bits which can only assume a single value (0x3000). Looking at encapsulated packets with tcpdump makes me 99.99% confident that it's all okay on that level. --L |
| Previous by Date: | Re: tunneling in linux (was: Re: [PATCH][RFC] etherip: Ethernet-in-IPv4 tunneling), Lennert Buytenhek |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: tunneling in linux (was: Re: [PATCH][RFC] etherip: Ethernet-in-IPv4 tunneling), Hasso Tepper |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH][RFC] etherip: Ethernet-in-IPv4 tunneling, jamal |
| Next by Thread: | Fw: [Bugme-new] [Bug 4027] New: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c, plus halt fails, Andrew Morton |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |