netdev - Re: [RFC net-next 3/3] mpls: new ipmpls device for encapsulating IP packets as mpls

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

Message-ID: <20150602213738.GA5842@pox.localdomain>
Date:	Tue, 2 Jun 2015 23:37:38 +0200
From:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	Robert Shearman <rshearma@...cade.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 3/3] mpls: new ipmpls device for encapsulating IP
 packets as mpls

On 06/02/15 at 01:26pm, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> What we really want here is xfrm-lite.  By lite I mean the tunnel
> selection criteria is simple enough that it fits into the normal
> routing table instead of having to do weird flow based magic that
> is rarely needed.
> 
> I believe what we want are the xfrm stacking of dst entries.

I assume you are referring to reusing the selector and stacked
dst. I considered that for the transmit side.

Can you elaborate on this some more? How would this look like
for the specific case of VXLAN? Any thoughts on the receive
side? You also mention that you dislike the net_device approach.
What do you suggest instead? The encapsulation is often postponed
to after the packet is fully constructed. Where should it get
hooked into?
--
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