Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Allow nested IPv6 encapsulations on same node

Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Allow nested IPv6 encapsulations on same node

[David S. Miller]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:26:42 +0300 (EEST)
Ville Nuorvala <vnuorval@tcs.hut.fi> wrote:

> this incremental patch allows nested IPv6 encapsulations on the same node
> by allocating separate sockets for all ip6_tnl devices. Please apply!

If you didn't use sockets to send the packets out, you wouldn't
have this problem to begin with.

Why do you need to use sockets?  Just send the packets out normally.

Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Allow nested IPv6 encapsulations on same node

[David S. Miller]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 16:22:38 +0300 (EEST)
Ville Nuorvala <vnuorval@tcs.hut.fi> wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, David S. Miller wrote:
> > Why do you need to use sockets?  Just send the packets out normally.
> 
> Well ok, I don't need to use sockets, but I do need to use socks :)

You don't need socks either.

Using sockets is just a waste of memory, and you're only using
them because of an interface problem.  Do you see what I'm trying
to say?

Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Allow nested IPv6 encapsulations on same node

[David S. Miller]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 19:42:21 +0300 (EEST)
Ville Nuorvala <vnuorval@tcs.hut.fi> wrote:

> In the old days ip6_build_xmit() was the way to go if you wanted
> fragmentation, but now ip6_fragment() _seems_ to be able to handle the
> whole thing without the help of ip6_append_data() & Co.
> 
> I'll have to test this and get back to you!

Another point is that you really don't want to use sockets
here for another reason, you're going to get artificial queueing
limits bacause each tunnel packet gets charged to the socket.