Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751195AbWISHIw (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Sep 2006 03:08:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751200AbWISHIw (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Sep 2006 03:08:52 -0400 Received: from ironport-c10.fh-zwickau.de ([141.32.72.200]:2985 "EHLO ironport-c10.fh-zwickau.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751195AbWISHIv (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Sep 2006 03:08:51 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AQAAAEEzD0WLawEBDQ X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,184,1157320800"; d="scan'208"; a="3227810:sNHT32418128" Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 09:08:48 +0200 From: Joerg Roedel To: Lennert Buytenhek Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net Subject: Re: [PATCH] EtherIP tunnel driver (RFC 3378) Message-ID: <20060919070848.GA11567@zlug.org> References: <20060911204129.GA28929@zlug.org> <20060918205252.GA6830@xi.wantstofly.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060918205252.GA6830@xi.wantstofly.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1809 Lines: 37 On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:52:52PM +0200, Lennert Buytenhek wrote: > Check out the thread "[PATCH][RFC] etherip: Ethernet-in-IPv4 tunneling" > that was on netdev in January of 2005 -- a number of arguments against > etherip (and for tunneling ethernet in GRE) were raised back then. I read this thread some weeks ago. I think there are reasons to have both variants in the kernel. Since both versions are implemented in different operatins systems and devices, having both will Linux make interoperable with all of them. In fact, the only implementers for EtherIP I found were various BSD derivates. I actually implemented this driver upon request of a BSD user who wanted interoperability of the NetBSD EtherIP implementation with Linux. > > One of the most significant ones, IMHO: > > > Another argument against etherip would be that OpenBSD apparently > > mis-implemented etherip by putting the etherip version nibble in the > > second nibble of the etherip header instead of the first, which would > > probably prevent the linux and OpenBSD versions from interoperating, > > negating the advantage of using etherip in the first place. I think this is not really a mistake in the OpenBSD implementation. In my opinion, the RFC is unclear at this point. I focused on interoperability in my implementation and did it the same way as OpenBSD (as NetBSD does also, AFAIK FreeBSD has also an EtherIP implementation, but I don't tested it). This is the reason why my driver does not check the value of the incoming EtherIP header too. Regards, Joerg Roedel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/