From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] ipip: advertise tunnel param via rtnl Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 11:42:48 -0800 Message-ID: <1352490168.19779.776.camel@edumazet-glaptop> References: <1352467239.19779.564.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <1352477401-19044-1-git-send-email-nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com> <1352477401-19044-2-git-send-email-nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com> <1352479020.19779.741.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <509D36CB.9030509@6wind.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net To: nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com Return-path: Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:55161 "EHLO mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753315Ab2KITmu (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Nov 2012 14:42:50 -0500 Received: by mail-pb0-f46.google.com with SMTP id rr4so3048037pbb.19 for ; Fri, 09 Nov 2012 11:42:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <509D36CB.9030509@6wind.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 18:00 +0100, Nicolas Dichtel wrote: > If the principle is approved, yes. If we add it, we will have two > ways to manage these tunnels, via netlink and via ioctl, is it ok? > > A side effect could be to have an option or an argument to the module to not > create the control interface (tunl0, sit0, ...). The principle is already used for gre tunnels, so it definitely is approved ;)