On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 07:49:03AM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> Am 04.04.21 um 01:21 schrieb Vladimir Oltean:
> > On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 05:05:34PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> >> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 01:48:40PM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> >>> Some switches (for example ar9331) do not p
Am 04.04.21 um 01:21 schrieb Vladimir Oltean:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 05:05:34PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 01:48:40PM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
>>> Some switches (for example ar9331) do not provide enough information
>>> about forwarded packets. If the switch dec
On 4/3/2021 16:21, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 05:05:34PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 01:48:40PM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
Some switches (for example ar9331) do not provide enough information
about forwarded packets. If the switch decision was
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 05:05:34PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 01:48:40PM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> > Some switches (for example ar9331) do not provide enough information
> > about forwarded packets. If the switch decision was made based on IPv4
> > or IPv6 header,
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 01:48:40PM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> Some switches (for example ar9331) do not provide enough information
> about forwarded packets. If the switch decision was made based on IPv4
> or IPv6 header, we need to analyze it and set proper flag.
>
> Potentially we can do it
Some switches (for example ar9331) do not provide enough information
about forwarded packets. If the switch decision was made based on IPv4
or IPv6 header, we need to analyze it and set proper flag.
Potentially we can do it in existing rcv path, on other hand we can
avoid part of duplicated work a
