On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 07:21:18AM -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > >>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. Hmm? If dhcpd is running on a VLAN interface tags should indeed be added to packets. (eth0.1 example above) Or do you mean that people run dhcpd on eth0 but expect it to still serve VLANs? I don't think that should work. //Peter
