On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 09:46:39AM +0100, Alex Zeffertt wrote: > Frederik Deweerdt wrote: > >On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 01:12:06PM +0100, Alex Zeffertt wrote: > >>I think we've had this conversation before. Search the list archives for "vlan Q in Q" > >Thanks for the pointer. Do you know why your patch didn't get merged into mainline? > > A couple of reasons. Firstly the patch means that the REORDER_HEADER flag (which is set by > default) cannot be unset. Unsetting this flag provides a slight performance enhancement > when bridging between two interfaces and keeping the same tag. > >From what I understood reading your patch, you've suppressed REORDER_HEADER because you stripped the vlan tag unconditionally instead. Is this absolutely needed? > Secondly, the current code allows you to send either untagged or tagged frames to a raw > socket and the result is the same, a tagged frame is sent. The patch however, always > adds a tag irrespective of whether the frame was already tagged. (This functionality > *had* to be ditched because if you allow q-in-q then you may *want* your frame double tagged.) > > 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. I agree with you, this should however be made optional because this would break backwards compatibility. What do you think? Regards, Frederik > > Ciao, > > Alex > _______________________________________________ > Vlan mailing list > Vlan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://www.candelatech.com/mailman/listinfo/vlan
