On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 06:45:46PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
so, on vlan, to insert the vlan tag, we right now:
-copy (most of) the existing ethernet header into a ether_vlan_header
on the stack
-fill the extra fields (tag, inside ether type) in ether_vlan_header
-set the ether type
* Claudio Jeker cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com [2014-04-21 11:14]:
__inline is dead long live inline.
oups, that crept back in.
Would it make sense to put this into a vlan_encap function so that we can
reduce the amount of layer violation here?
#if NVLAN 0
if (ifp-if_type == IFT_L2VLAN)
* Alexey Suslikov alexey.susli...@gmail.com [2014-04-21 13:13]:
Henning Brauer lists-openbsdtech at bsws.de writes:
congratulations, that is close to unauditable.
i put the vlan and the !vlan case next to each other ON PURPOSE. both
cases add an ethernet header, one with a few extra fields,
On 21/04/14(Mon) 11:14, Claudio Jeker wrote:
[...]
Would it make sense to put this into a vlan_encap function so that we can
reduce the amount of layer violation here?
I think it makes sense.
#if NVLAN 0
if (ifp-if_type == IFT_L2VLAN)
return vlan_encap(ifp, m);
Henning Brauer lists-openbsdtech at bsws.de writes:
I must admit I am getting tired of all these good proposals/ideas.
don't you think we've gone thru this before?
Look, I haven't called them good or bad.
what you propose would require a custom vlan_output function which
does nothing but
* Alexey Suslikov alexey.susli...@gmail.com [2014-04-21 13:56]:
Henning Brauer lists-openbsdtech at bsws.de writes:
I must admit I am getting tired of all these good proposals/ideas.
don't you think we've gone thru this before?
Look, I haven't called them good or bad.
what you
Henning Brauer lists-openbsdtech at bsws.de writes:
And lot of (possible) encapsulation subsystems in the middle: vlan,
vlan-in-vlan, ipsec, you name it.
VLAN IS NOT AN ENCAPSULATION.
Well, vlan(4) says:
vlan, svlan - IEEE 802.1Q/1AD encapsulation/decapsulation pseudo-device
Given a
this bikeshedding is annoying as hell and only makes sure we're not
proceeding. makes me almost want to reconsider the open development
process using tech@ instead of a private list.
and I want to proceed here, so I am looking for oks unless someone has
real, non-bikeshedding issues. and certainly
Henning Brauer lists-openbsdtech at bsws.de writes:
And lot of (possible) encapsulation subsystems in the middle: vlan,
vlan-in-vlan, ipsec, you name it.
VLAN IS NOT AN ENCAPSULATION.
Well, vlan(4) says:
vlan, svlan - IEEE 802.1Q/1AD encapsulation/decapsulation pseudo-device
so while so many here were so busy bikeshedding, wasting everyone's
time and hindering progress, reyk and I found that several people,
including me, had flaws in their testing. unfortunately have to go the
vlan_output route. root cause undo undo damage, don't make me explain
please...
new diff.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 09:01:52PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
so while so many here were so busy bikeshedding, wasting everyone's
time and hindering progress, reyk and I found that several people,
including me, had flaws in their testing. unfortunately have to go the
vlan_output route. root
11 matches
Mail list logo
