* Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Allow nested IPv6 encapsulations on same node [not found] <Pine.LNX.4.44.0308271413450.7839-100000@rhea.tcs.hut.fi> @ 2003-08-27 11:20 ` David S. Miller [not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.44.0308271441390.7839-100000@rhea.tcs.hut.fi> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: David S. Miller @ 2003-08-27 11:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ville Nuorvala; +Cc: usagi-core, netdev 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0308271441390.7839-100000@rhea.tcs.hut.fi>]
* Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Allow nested IPv6 encapsulations on same node [not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.44.0308271441390.7839-100000@rhea.tcs.hut.fi> @ 2003-08-27 13:45 ` David S. Miller [not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.44.0308271731140.7839-100000@rhea.tcs.hut.fi> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: David S. Miller @ 2003-08-27 13:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ville Nuorvala; +Cc: usagi-core, netdev 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? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0308271731140.7839-100000@rhea.tcs.hut.fi>]
* Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Allow nested IPv6 encapsulations on same node [not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.44.0308271731140.7839-100000@rhea.tcs.hut.fi> @ 2003-08-28 7:10 ` David S. Miller 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: David S. Miller @ 2003-08-28 7:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ville Nuorvala; +Cc: usagi-core, netdev 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-08-28 7:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <Pine.LNX.4.44.0308271413450.7839-100000@rhea.tcs.hut.fi>
2003-08-27 11:20 ` [PATCH] IPv6: Allow nested IPv6 encapsulations on same node David S. Miller
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.44.0308271441390.7839-100000@rhea.tcs.hut.fi>
2003-08-27 13:45 ` David S. Miller
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.44.0308271731140.7839-100000@rhea.tcs.hut.fi>
2003-08-28 7:10 ` David S. Miller
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).