[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101123101302.54a9e4be@nehalam>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:13:02 -0800
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Timo Teräs <timo.teras@....fi>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iproute2: support xfrm upper protocol gre key
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:44:44 +0200
Timo Teräs <timo.teras@....fi> wrote:
> On 11/23/2010 06:24 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 17:02:39 +0200
> > Timo Teräs <timo.teras@....fi> wrote:
> >
> >> + case IPPROTO_GRE:
> >> + if (sel->sport_mask || sel->dport_mask) {
> >> + struct in_addr key;
> >> + key.s_addr = htonl((ntohs(sel->sport) << 16) + ntohs(sel->dport));
> >> + inet_ntop(AF_INET, &key, abuf, sizeof(abuf));
> >> + fprintf(fp, "key %s ", abuf);
> >> + }
> >
> > The GRE key is not really an IPv4 address. Why should the utilities
> > use IPv4 address manipulation to format/scan it. It makes more sense
> > to me to just use u32 an do the necessary ntohl.
>
> This is pretty much how iptunnel.c does it, so I copied the code. Would
> you prefer to format it as single u32 number? Or use something else for
> formatting it similar to IPv4?
>
> In either case, we should change iptunnel.c to match ipxfrm.c. It'll be
> easier if both parts handling the gre key treat it equivalently.
>
> I think Cisco does indeed treat it as u32 number in the configurations.
> So I'm okay updating this patch, and fixing iptunnel.c side too. We
> might still want to keep the parsing of ipv4 format to keep backwards
> compatibility.
My preference would be to take both dotted quad and a single
number.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists