Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[XFRM\]\:\s+Always\s+reroute\s+in\s+tunnel\s+mode\s*$/: 22 ]

Total 22 documents matching your query.

1. [XFRM]: Always reroute in tunnel mode (score: 1)
Author: umar <shivakumar.chetan@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:22:23 +0100
Please see Changeset comment for a description, patch is based on your 2.6.12 tree. Regards Patrick Signed-off-by: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> S
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00604.html (11,759 bytes)

2. Re: [XFRM]: Always reroute in tunnel mode (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:36:54 +1100
I understand the inconsistency and agree that it should be fixed. However, I think the way you did it has created a new inconsistency. Tunnel mode SAs are not always used to carry subnets. It can als
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00607.html (9,827 bytes)

3. Re: [XFRM]: Always reroute in tunnel mode (score: 1)
Author: san, Ganesh" <ganesh.venkatesan@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:15:55 +0100
Herbert Xu wrote: I understand the inconsistency and agree that it should be fixed. However, I think the way you did it has created a new inconsistency. Tunnel mode SAs are not always used to carry s
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00615.html (14,453 bytes)

4. Re: [XFRM]: Always reroute in tunnel mode (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:25:41 +0100
Patrick McHardy wrote: == include/net/xfrm.h 1.76 vs edited == -- 1.76/include/net/xfrm.h 2005-02-15 22:46:16 +01:00 +++ edited/include/net/xfrm.h 2005-02-17 18:57:39 +01:00 @@ -857,7 +857,7 @@ exter
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00616.html (11,031 bytes)

5. Re: [XFRM]: Always reroute in tunnel mode (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 07:38:05 +1100
That's right. However, you should also look at it this way. We start with a policy with a transport mode SA. In order to protect the IP header we change it to use a tunnel mode SA with a host-to-host
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00619.html (10,139 bytes)

6. Re: [XFRM]: Always reroute in tunnel mode (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:23:02 +0100
Herbert Xu wrote: On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 07:15:55PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: I don't think this solves the inconsistency. By reuseing routes in tunnel mode we allow routing by different criteri
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00620.html (10,543 bytes)

7. Re: [XFRM]: Always reroute in tunnel mode (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman)
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 09:10:31 +1100
Well we'll have to disagree on that. IMHO the flow with the internal addresses equal to the external addresses over a tunnel mode SA should be treated the same as that over a transport mode SA. Are y
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00622.html (10,457 bytes)

8. Re: [XFRM]: Always reroute in tunnel mode (score: 1)
Author: cHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 00:02:27 +0100
Herbert Xu wrote: On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 10:23:02PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: I don't consider this inconsistent, in fact it is consistent to what happens with other tunnels. We could get the be
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00624.html (10,983 bytes)

9. Re: [XFRM]: Always reroute in tunnel mode (score: 1)
Author: ert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:11:22 -0800
I have to side with Patrick on this one. This is one of the fundamental tunnel behavior differences between Transport mode and Tunnel mode SAs.
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00626.html (9,540 bytes)

10. Re: [XFRM]: Always reroute in tunnel mode (score: 1)
Author: Matt Mackall <mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:53:44 +1100
OK. I don't see it that way. To me IPsec is about encapsulating a packet so that it gets to the destination securely. It shouldn't affect the routing of the packet on the host itself. Of course, once
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00640.html (11,197 bytes)

11. Re: [XFRM]: Always reroute in tunnel mode (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 07:23:06 +0100
Herbert Xu wrote: Put it another way, my solution to Patrick's inconsistency would be to always inherit the routing decision from the top to the bottom of the bundle. For example, suppose you had ip
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00661.html (10,565 bytes)

12. [XFRM]: Always reroute in tunnel mode (score: 1)
Author: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:22:23 +0100
Please see Changeset comment for a description, patch is based on your 2.6.12 tree. Regards Patrick Signed-off-by: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> S
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01624.html (11,722 bytes)

13. Re: [XFRM]: Always reroute in tunnel mode (score: 1)
Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:36:54 +1100
I understand the inconsistency and agree that it should be fixed. However, I think the way you did it has created a new inconsistency. Tunnel mode SAs are not always used to carry subnets. It can als
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01627.html (9,920 bytes)

14. Re: [XFRM]: Always reroute in tunnel mode (score: 1)
Author: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:15:55 +0100
I understand the inconsistency and agree that it should be fixed. However, I think the way you did it has created a new inconsistency. Tunnel mode SAs are not always used to carry subnets. It can al
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01635.html (14,390 bytes)

15. Re: [XFRM]: Always reroute in tunnel mode (score: 1)
Author: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:25:41 +0100
== include/net/xfrm.h 1.76 vs edited == -- 1.76/include/net/xfrm.h 2005-02-15 22:46:16 +01:00 +++ edited/include/net/xfrm.h 2005-02-17 18:57:39 +01:00 @@ -857,7 +857,7 @@ extern void xfrm_policy_flu
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01636.html (11,084 bytes)

16. Re: [XFRM]: Always reroute in tunnel mode (score: 1)
Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 07:38:05 +1100
That's right. However, you should also look at it this way. We start with a policy with a transport mode SA. In order to protect the IP header we change it to use a tunnel mode SA with a host-to-host
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01639.html (10,286 bytes)

17. Re: [XFRM]: Always reroute in tunnel mode (score: 1)
Author: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:23:02 +0100
I don't think this solves the inconsistency. By reuseing routes in tunnel mode we allow routing by different criteria when the inner packet is headed for the remote gateway. Your suggestion limits t
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01640.html (10,668 bytes)

18. Re: [XFRM]: Always reroute in tunnel mode (score: 1)
Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 09:10:31 +1100
Well we'll have to disagree on that. IMHO the flow with the internal addresses equal to the external addresses over a tunnel mode SA should be treated the same as that over a transport mode SA. Are y
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01642.html (10,657 bytes)

19. Re: [XFRM]: Always reroute in tunnel mode (score: 1)
Author: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 00:02:27 +0100
I don't consider this inconsistent, in fact it is consistent to what happens with other tunnels. We could get the behaviour you want (my Well we'll have to disagree on that. IMHO the flow with the i
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01644.html (11,225 bytes)

20. Re: [XFRM]: Always reroute in tunnel mode (score: 1)
Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:11:22 -0800
I have to side with Patrick on this one. This is one of the fundamental tunnel behavior differences between Transport mode and Tunnel mode SAs.
/archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01646.html (9,748 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu