On 19.07.2014 08:48, Baptiste Jonglez wrote: > Hi, > > Two packages provide the "proto l2tp" netifd protocol: xl2tpd [1] in the > new packages feed, and l2tpv3tun [2] in oldpackages. > > The config are totally different, the problem is really a name clash.
It seems they are doing things differently xl2tpd is RFC2661 (https://github.com/xelerance/xl2tpd/blob/master/README.xl2tpd) l2tpv3 is RFC5641 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5641) changes are in: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3931#section-1.1 > What is the recommended way to deal with name clashes in netifd protocols, > without breaking existing user configuration? > > In this case, using "proto l2tpv2" for xl2tpd and "proto l2tpv3" for > l2tpv3tun would probably be the cleanest, but it would break configuration > for anyone using one or the other :) > clean versions leads to less confusion > Note that only the l2tpv3tun configuration is documented right now [3]. > > Thanks, > Baptiste > > [1] https://github.com/openwrt/packages/tree/master/net/xl2tpd > [2] http://git.openwrt.org/?p=packages.git;a=tree;f=net/l2tpv3tun > [3] > http://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/uci/network#protocol.l2tp.l2tp.pseudowire.tunnel > I wrote something about l2tpv3tun earlier,see : http://patchwork.openwrt.org/patch/4891/ Arguments for using iproute2 instead of l2tpv3tun might still apply _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
