[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120730152657.02e88444@vostro>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:26:57 +0300
From: Timo Teras <timo.teras@....fi>
To: Kozlov Dmitry <xeb@...l.ru>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next,v3] GRE over IPv6
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:52:46 +0400 Kozlov Dmitry <xeb@...l.ru> wrote:
> On Monday 30 July 2012 14:38:06 Timo Teras wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 22:12:42 -0000 xeb@...l.ru wrote:
> > > GRE over IPv6 implementation.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Kozlov <xeb@...l.ru>
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Changes:
> > > Initialize nt->dev before calling ip6gre_tnl_link_config in
> > > ip6gre_newlink.
> > > Add missing ip6gre.c
> > >
> > > include/linux/if_arp.h | 1 +
> > > include/linux/if_tunnel.h | 3 +
> > > include/linux/ip6_tunnel.h | 18 +
> > > include/net/ip6_tunnel.h | 40 +-
> > > include/net/ipv6.h | 1 +
> > > net/ipv6/Kconfig | 16 +
> > > net/ipv6/Makefile | 1 +
> > > net/ipv6/ip6_gre.c | 1817
> > >
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > net/ipv6/ip6_tunnel.c | 86 ++- 9 files changed, 1958
> > > insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> >
> > Would it be possible and/or feasible to instead modify ip_gre to
> > support also ipv6 as outer protocol?
> >
> > It already has ipv6 stuff in it for the inner protocol support. And
> > it would avoid duplicating most of the code.
> >
> > And I would especially love that approach, since I could then on
> > per-target basis say if it should be contacted with IPv4 or IPv6.
> > As in:
> >
> > ip addr add 10.0.0.1/24 dev gre1
> > ip neigh add 10.0.0.2 lladdr 192.168.x.x dev gre1 nud permanent
> > ip neigh add 10.0.0.3 lladdr fe80::xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx/64 dev
> > gre1 nud permanent
>
> Sounds good, but it involves too many if/else because there are much
> ipv4 and ipv6 specifics and code will be unreadable. I see only
> shared part is tunnel initialization and managing code. Tunnel
> lookup, receive and transmit parts are mostly different.
Hmm... And thinking more, it looks like various other places need lot
of tuning; e.g. tunnel might need multiple local address bindings
which is not nice.
And now that I checked, seems Cisco also needs separate tunnel
interfaces for "over IPv4" and "over IPv6" targets. That's rather
inconvenient, but seems to be how things are.
--
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