[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD53P8AHEm0Q1gFcaL=WVqc65gKNkc+yEbLSi8qW-iLaNxjWQA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 03:29:10 +0300
From: Boian Bonev <bbonev@...cct.com>
To: Boian Bonev <bbonev@...cct.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC EOIP Tunnel
Hi,
> Actually, I does get used in BSD land. I have seen several setups some time
> ago where gif interfaces got added to a bridge interface, which behaves like
> EtherIP then. Prior to FreeBSD 8 they reversed the bytes of the version field
> so they still have to provide knobs for backwards compatibility.
In FreeBSD the same thing is implemented as netgraph node...
>> Before going in technical details and submitting patches I want to
>> know opinions if this work is suitable for merging upstream or is
>> better to be kept as a side kernel patch project.
>
> If the side kernel patch has matured and you are fine with it just propose it
> to get merged.
It is mature enough for the 3.2 series kernels (but obviously this is
not ok for submitting). Since then tunnels have got refactored to have
common code in a single place used by all tunnels and also GRE GSO
support was added. I am not very confident if I can get the GSO part
the right way and properly test it...
Thanks for the pointers - will follow your advice and submit a patch.
>> ps. https://github.com/bbonev/eoip contains 3.2.x patches + somehow
>> working but quite crappy config tool
>
> Configuration should be done by iproute.
This is my plan. The config tool is more like a proof of concept thing.
With best regards,
b.
--
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