netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTNETLINK] Tunnel config via netlink (Was Re: Convert RTM_* to enum

To: Ville Nuorvala <vnuorval@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RTNETLINK] Tunnel config via netlink (Was Re: Convert RTM_* to enum)
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:13:40 +0300 (EEST)
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0409161129590.24531@rhea.tcs.hut.fi>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Ville Nuorvala wrote:
> While designing the netlink interface it might perhaps be a good idea to
> take a look at draft-ietf-ipv6-inet-tunnel-mib-02.txt, which is currently
> in IESG processing. The IPv6 specific tunnel encapsulation limit (below)
> is still missing from the draft but will be included in the RFC.
> 
> tunnelIfEncapsLimit OBJECT-TYPE
>     SYNTAX     Integer32 (-1 | 0..255)
>     MAX-ACCESS read-write
>     STATUS     current
>     DESCRIPTION
>             "The maximum number of additional encapsulations permitted
>             for packets undergoing encapsulation at this node.  A value
>             of -1 indicates that no limit is present (except as a result
>             of the packet size)."
>     REFERENCE  "RFC 2473, section 4.1.1"
>     ::= { tunnelIfEntry 11 }

FWIW, I've always viewed this as a mostly unnecessary feature that
nobody bothers to implement, but YMMV.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings


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