Peter Stuge wrote: > On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 10:04:46AM -0700, Ben Greear wrote: >> Alex Zeffertt wrote: >>> Frederik Deweerdt wrote: >>> IMHO, raw sockets *should* always tag, rather than tag or not tag >>> depending on whether the >>> frame is already tagged. It just seems more logical and consistent. >> If a program is clever enough that it thinks it can send raw packets, >> I think it can send vlan tags too. But, we have to be able to remain >> backwards compat allowing sending raw ether frames to a vlan and have >> the vlan encapsulate. > > I would expect a raw socket to be no different from an IPv4 socket. > If the socket is bound to an interface, the socket should expect an > ethernet packet and that packet should be sent out the interface > without interference: > > packet on socket on eth0 = no tag on packet on wire > packet on socket on eth0.1 = VLAN1 tag on packet on wire > packet on socket on eth0.1.2 = VLAN2 tag on VLAN1 tag on packet on wire > I agree. If the program which owns the raw socket *really* wants to send a non-vlan frame then it would probably use eth0! > > Agreed, we must be backwards-compatible. If need be q(inq)+ can > require explicit enabling with vconfig. > Good idea. Alex
