From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steffen Klassert Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] ipv6: Add support for IPsec virtual tunnel interfaces Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:08:36 +0200 Message-ID: <20130827110836.GE7660@secunet.com> References: <20130819062623.GN26773@secunet.com> <20130819062730.GP26773@secunet.com> <1377535058.11709.21.camel@dcbw.foobar.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Dan Williams Return-path: Received: from a.mx.secunet.com ([195.81.216.161]:54942 "EHLO a.mx.secunet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752321Ab3H0LIi (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Aug 2013 07:08:38 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1377535058.11709.21.camel@dcbw.foobar.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:37:38AM -0500, Dan Williams wrote: > On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 08:27 +0200, Steffen Klassert wrote: > > This patch adds IPv6 support for IPsec virtual tunnel interfaces > > (vti). IPsec virtual tunnel interfaces provide a routable interface > > for IPsec tunnel endpoints. > > Are new ioctls for this kind of thing kosher? Or should it be using > netlink instead? > Well, I used the existing interface that all tunnels use. In particular the vti tunnel for ipv4 uses it and the ipv6 side should be similar. We could extend the netlink interface for tunnels of course, but that's another issue.