Hi Peter,
Peter Stuge schrieb:
> Fabian Knittel wrote:
>> +#define OPENVPN_8021Q_MAX_VID 0xFFFE
>
> The max VID in 802.1q is 4095 = 0xfff.
You are absolutely correct. Thanks for catching that. I intended it to
say 0xFFE, because the standard talks about VID values being valid
within the range
Peter Stuge schrieb:
> Fabian Knittel wrote:
>> + if (ntohs (vlanhdr.tpid) != OPENVPN_ETH_P_8021Q)
>> +{
>> + /* Drop untagged frames */
>> + goto err;
>> +}
>
> It would be nice to be able to use VID 0 to mean untagged packets.
Hm, nice idea. I'll implement it in my next roun
Hi Fabian,
Fabian Knittel wrote:
> >> +#define OPENVPN_8021Q_MAX_VID 0xFFFE
> >
> > The max VID in 802.1q is 4095 = 0xfff.
>
> You are absolutely correct. Thanks for catching that. I intended
> it to say 0xFFE, because the standard talks about VID values being
> valid within the range 0 throug
Hi David,
David Sommerseth schrieb:
> Thank you very much for your patches! I'll look into them soon.
Thanks!
> The
> patches seems to apply nicely against the feat_passtos branch. I was
> worried about a conflict here, until I noticed where you had your roots :)
Actually, I was lucky to noti
Fabian Knittel schrieb:
> Peter Stuge schrieb:
>> It would be nice to be able to use VID 0 to mean untagged packets.
>
> Hm, nice idea. I'll implement it in my next round of patches.
I've just noticed a detail that might warrant discussion. To make sure
we're talking about the same thing, this
On 01/04/10 10:32, Fabian Knittel wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> David Sommerseth schrieb:
>> Thank you very much for your patches! I'll look into them soon.
>
> Thanks!
>
>> The
>> patches seems to apply nicely against the feat_passtos branch. I was
>> worried about a conflict here, until I noticed w
Fabian Knittel wrote:
Peter Stuge schrieb:
Fabian Knittel wrote:
+ if (ntohs (vlanhdr.tpid) != OPENVPN_ETH_P_8021Q)
+{
+ /* Drop untagged frames */
+ goto err;
+}
It would be nice to be able to use VID 0 to mean untagged packets.
Hm, nice idea. I'll im
Jan Just Keijser wrote:
> FYI: 802.1Q defines VLAN 1 as the 'native' LAN: all packets on VLAN 1
> are *by definition* not encapsulated (according to my CCNA guide ;-))
802.1Q != CCNA..
Look at the spec, Table 9-2 on page 86. (100 in PDF)
VID Use
0 "no VLAN identifier is present in the frame"
Peter Stuge wrote:
Jan Just Keijser wrote:
FYI: 802.1Q defines VLAN 1 as the 'native' LAN: all packets on VLAN 1
are *by definition* not encapsulated (according to my CCNA guide ;-))
802.1Q != CCNA..
Look at the spec, Table 9-2 on page 86. (100 in PDF)
VID Use
0 "no VLAN identifier
Peter Stuge schrieb:
> Jan Just Keijser wrote:
>> FYI: 802.1Q defines VLAN 1 as the 'native' LAN: all packets on VLAN 1
>> are *by definition* not encapsulated (according to my CCNA guide ;-))
[...]
>> Perhaps we need to make sure that VID 1 means untagged ...
>
> Any VID can be untagged. While 1
Jan Just Keijser schrieb:
> Peter Stuge wrote:
>> Look at the spec, Table 9-2 on page 86. (100 in PDF)
>>
>> VID Use
>> 0 "no VLAN identifier is present in the frame"
>> 1 "The default PVID value used for classifying frames on ingress ..
>> The PVID value of a Port can be changed by manage
On 01/04/10 13:28, Fabian Knittel wrote:
> Peter Stuge schrieb:
>> Jan Just Keijser wrote:
>>> FYI: 802.1Q defines VLAN 1 as the 'native' LAN: all packets on VLAN 1
>>> are *by definition* not encapsulated (according to my CCNA guide ;-))
> [...]
>>> Perhaps we need to make sure that VID 1 means u
David Sommerseth schrieb:
> On 01/04/10 10:32, Fabian Knittel wrote:
>> We'll definitely be doing that over here. My main concern was whether
>> we would have to patch OpenVPN indefinitely with local enhancements or
>> whether there was a chance to include it upstream. And now that things
>> look
On 01/04/10 13:59, Fabian Knittel wrote:
> David Sommerseth schrieb:
>> On 01/04/10 10:32, Fabian Knittel wrote:
>>> We'll definitely be doing that over here. My main concern was whether
>>> we would have to patch OpenVPN indefinitely with local enhancements or
>>> whether there was a chance to in
So, what is the status of this patch? Would Openvpn
release "unpackaged" MS Windows binaries? If so
you can apply the code patch and I'll rework the
documentation patch into where ever the documentation
currently exists.
On 02/28/2010 09:48:46 PM, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> On 02/28/2010 06:27:54 AM,
> Actually, I was lucky to notice the openvpn-unstable.git repo before
> submission. My original patch-set was based on the subversion repo
> branch beta21 and would have conflicted with feat_passtos. I didn't
> notice the git repo and the Wiki on secure-computing.net until I
> happened to look
>> Actually, I was lucky to notice the openvpn-unstable.git repo before
>> submission. My original patch-set was based on the subversion repo
>> branch beta21 and would have conflicted with feat_passtos. I didn't
>> notice the git repo and the Wiki on secure-computing.net until I
>> happened to
I created an agenda for today's meeting which begins in ~85 minutes.
Notice that the meeting will be on #openvpn-devel rather than
#openvpn-discussion (on irc.freenode.net). However, forwarding should be
in place should somebody join the old channel.
http://www.secure-computing.net/wiki/index.php/
David Sommerseth schrieb:
> If you have a public git tree available, I could pull that as well. (I
> tried the git URL the webUI gave me yesterday, without luck).
Ah, thanks for noticing ... the non-ssh path apparently doesn't get used
often. I forgot to fix the URLs since switching to gitosis. I
19 matches
Mail list logo
