From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Timo_Ter=E4s?= Subject: Re: [PATCH] iproute2: support xfrm upper protocol gre key Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:44:44 +0200 Message-ID: <4CEBEF7C.2060806@iki.fi> References: <1290524559-22086-1-git-send-email-timo.teras@iki.fi> <20101123082404.5b8ad019@nehalam> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from mail-ew0-f46.google.com ([209.85.215.46]:51163 "EHLO mail-ew0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753962Ab0KWQos (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Nov 2010 11:44:48 -0500 Received: by ewy5 with SMTP id 5so2549068ewy.19 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 08:44:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20101123082404.5b8ad019@nehalam> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11/23/2010 06:24 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 17:02:39 +0200 > Timo Ter=E4s wrote: >=20 >> + case IPPROTO_GRE: >> + if (sel->sport_mask || sel->dport_mask) { >> + struct in_addr key; >> + key.s_addr =3D htonl((ntohs(sel->sport) << 16) + ntohs(sel->dpor= t)); >> + inet_ntop(AF_INET, &key, abuf, sizeof(abuf)); >> + fprintf(fp, "key %s ", abuf); >> + } >=20 > The GRE key is not really an IPv4 address. Why should the utilities > use IPv4 address manipulation to format/scan it. It makes more sense > to me to just use u32 an do the necessary ntohl. This is pretty much how iptunnel.c does it, so I copied the code. Would you prefer to format it as single u32 number? Or use something else for formatting it similar to IPv4? In either case, we should change iptunnel.c to match ipxfrm.c. It'll be easier if both parts handling the gre key treat it equivalently. I think Cisco does indeed treat it as u32 number in the configurations. So I'm okay updating this patch, and fixing iptunnel.c side too. We might still want to keep the parsing of ipv4 format to keep backwards compatibility.