Alex Zeffertt wrote: > 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! We currently will encapsulate a raw pkt into a vlan packet. This makes things like (older?) dhcp work, for instance, so we have to retain at least this feature. If we do not want to encapsulate q in q, that is fine...but it will probably break some dhcp servers, at least. Off to a trade show for a few days...and will be doing some kernel hacking when I get back to fix some bugs in some other modules..so maybe I'll get some time to poke at q in q then... Ben > >> >> Agreed, we must be backwards-compatible. If need be q(inq)+ can >> require explicit enabling with vconfig. >> > > Good idea. > > Alex > _______________________________________________ > Vlan mailing list > Vlan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://www.candelatech.com/mailman/listinfo/vlan > -- Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
