> > Lorenzo, is this being added to fix interoperability with another L2TPv3 > > implementation? If so, can you share more details? > > > > Hi James, > > I introduced peer_offset parameter to fix a specific setup where > tunnel endpoints > running L2TPv3 would use different values for tx offset (since in > iproute2 there is no > restriction on it), not to fix a given an interoperability issue. > Yes, but was it just to test iproute2's peer_offset option? Or is there a plan to use it for real?
> I introduced this feature since: > - offset has been added for long time to L2TPv3 implementation > (commit f7faffa3ff8ef6ae712ef16312b8a2aa7a1c95fe and > commit 309795f4bec2d69cd507a631f82065c2198a0825) and I wanted to > preserve UABI > - have the same degree of freedom for offset parameter we have in > L2TPv2 and fix the issue > described above > AFAIU, the current L2TPv2 implementation never sets the offset field and nobody ever realised. > Now what we can do I guess is: > - as suggested by Guillaume drop completely the offset support without > removing > netlink attribute in order to not break UABI > - fix offset support initializing properly padding bits > I'd go for the first one. I just wonder if that looks acceptable to David an James.
