From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniele Orlandi Subject: Re: Request for an ARPHRD_ Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 23:33:04 +0200 Message-ID: <200510242333.05366.daniele@orlandi.com> References: <200510240255.28416.daniele@orlandi.com> <200510241807.23290.ak@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: netdev@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <200510241807.23290.ak@suse.de> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Monday 24 October 2005 18:07, Andi Kleen wrote: > > ETH_P_* is managed by the IEEE (part of the ethernet standard) You would > need to ask them. I need a pseudo protocol like it is already done for some internal protocol, e.g.: /* * Non DIX types. Won't clash for 1500 types. */ [.....] #define ETH_P_WAN_PPP 0x0007 /* Dummy type for WAN PPP frames*/ #define ETH_P_PPP_MP 0x0008 /* Dummy type for PPP MP frames */ #define ETH_P_LOCALTALK 0x0009 /* Localtalk pseudo type */ #define ETH_P_PPPTALK 0x0010 /* Dummy type for Atalk over PPP*/ [....] > Normally Linux doesn't pre-allocate ABIs for out of tree code, mostly > because it is not guaranteed that the interface won't change there. Could you clarify? What interface do you fear that could change? My main concern is that without an ARPHRD_ constant guaranteed to be unique I wouldn't be able to propose a patch for libpcap people to map the (already allocated) DLT_ to the correct ARPHRD_. Bye, -- Daniele Orlandi