On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 11:55:14AM +1000, Philip Craig wrote:
> > I have one machine at home that appears to be on my employer's network
> > via such a tunnel. I don't use bridging, because I don't need any other
> > machine at home to access this tunnel. I do want bridging, and not proxy
> > AR
Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> I have one machine at home that appears to be on my employer's network
> via such a tunnel. I don't use bridging, because I don't need any other
> machine at home to access this tunnel. I do want bridging, and not proxy
> ARP, because it allows me to run arpwatch, and d
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 11:00:55AM +1000, Philip Craig wrote:
> >>> So now you _need_ bridging in the middle to send ethernet traffic over
> >>> a GRE tunnel? Ugh.
> >> Agreed that would not be nice. What is the usage scenario for this?
> >> At least one end of the tunnel will be bridged?
> >
>
Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 07:14:59PM +1000, Philip Craig wrote:
>
>>> So now you _need_ bridging in the middle to send ethernet traffic over
>>> a GRE tunnel? Ugh.
>> Agreed that would not be nice. What is the usage scenario for this?
>> At least one end of the tunnel wi
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 07:14:59PM +1000, Philip Craig wrote:
> > So now you _need_ bridging in the middle to send ethernet traffic over
> > a GRE tunnel? Ugh.
>
> Agreed that would not be nice. What is the usage scenario for this?
> At least one end of the tunnel will be bridged?
For example
Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> So now you _need_ bridging in the middle to send ethernet traffic over
> a GRE tunnel? Ugh.
Agreed that would not be nice. What is the usage scenario for this?
At least one end of the tunnel will be bridged?
> If you really want to send ethernet and non-ethernet traff
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 11:33:25AM +1000, Philip Craig wrote:
> >>> All it does is encapsulate the full ethernet header in a gre packet,
> >>> rather than only layer 3. That is, currently gre uses ARPHRD_IPGRE,
> >>> but bridging requires ARPHRD_ETHER.
> >>
> >> I am not against making the bridge
Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 10:08:22PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
Why not use existing bridge code?
>>> It does use the existing bridge code. Perhaps the name is misleading.
>>> All it does is encapsulate the full ethernet header in a gre packet,
>>> rather than
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:17:42 +1000
> Philip Craig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It generates a random mac address for gre ports, and also stores
>> a copy of the mac address for ethernet ports, rather than checking
>> dev->type everywhere.
>
> That looks cleaner. I wonder
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:17:42 +1000
Philip Craig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> >> I am not against making the bridge code smarter to handle other
> >> encapsulation.
>
> Here's an updated patch that fixes all issues I am aware of.
>
> It generates a random mac address
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 10:08:22PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > Why not use existing bridge code?
> >
> > It does use the existing bridge code. Perhaps the name is misleading.
> > All it does is encapsulate the full ethernet header in a gre packet,
> > rather than only layer 3. That is
> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>> I am not against making the bridge code smarter to handle other
>> encapsulation.
Here's an updated patch that fixes all issues I am aware of.
It generates a random mac address for gre ports, and also stores
a copy of the mac address for ethernet ports, rather than c
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> I am not against making the bridge code smarter to handle other
> encapsulation.
Do you mean something like this patch?
The only drawback I see for this approach is that it means you
can only encapsulate the ethernet header if the gre interface is
bridged. That's not t
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:15:29 +1000
Philip Craig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:06:41 +1000
> > Philip Craig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> This patch implements transparent ethernet bridging for gre tunnels.
> >> There are a few outstanding i
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:06:41 +1000
> Philip Craig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This patch implements transparent ethernet bridging for gre tunnels.
>> There are a few outstanding issues.
>
> Why not use existing bridge code?
It does use the existing bridge code. Pe
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:06:41 +1000
Philip Craig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch implements transparent ethernet bridging for gre tunnels.
> There are a few outstanding issues.
Why not use existing bridge code?
> There is no way for userspace to select the type of gre tunnel. The
> #if 0
This patch implements transparent ethernet bridging for gre tunnels.
There are a few outstanding issues.
There is no way for userspace to select the type of gre tunnel. The
#if 0 near the top of the patch forces all gre tunnels to be bridges.
The problem is that userspace uses an IPPROTO_ to selec
17 matches
Mail list logo
