linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/03][RESUBMIT] net: EtherIP tunnel driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <451840CA.5060901@hp.com>
Date:	Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:49:14 -0400
From:	Brian Haley <brian.haley@...com>
To:	Joerg Roedel <joro-lkml@...g.org>
Cc:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>,
	Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw@...-owl.de>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, davem@...emloft.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/03][RESUBMIT] net: EtherIP tunnel driver

Joerg Roedel wrote:
>> Is there something in the RFC that suggests that a byte order other than
>> 'network order' is possible/acceptable there?
> 
> No. The RFC states nothing at all about byte- or bitorder. That is why
> the RFC is ambigious at this point.

RFC 791 (IPv4) Appendix B does give instructions on byte ordering for 
all IPv4 headers and data, and RFC 791 is listed in the References for 
RFC 3378.  I noticed this is only Informational, not a Standards track 
document, so I guess the non-interoperable implementations kind of go 
with the territory.

-Brian
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/