From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>
To: Philip Craig <philipc@snapgear.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] gre: transparent ethernet bridging
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 22:08:22 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060731220822.444f04e4@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <44CEAB31.5090501@snapgear.com>
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:15:29 +1000
Philip Craig <philipc@snapgear.com> wrote:
> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:06:41 +1000
> > Philip Craig <philipc@snapgear.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This patch implements transparent ethernet bridging for gre tunnels.
> >> There are a few outstanding issues.
> >
> > Why not use existing bridge code?
>
> It does use the existing bridge code. Perhaps the name is misleading.
> All it does is encapsulate the full ethernet header in a gre packet,
> rather than only layer 3. That is, currently gre uses ARPHRD_IPGRE,
> but bridging requires ARPHRD_ETHER.
>
I am not against making the bridge code smarter to handle other
encapsulation.
> >> Some routers set LLC_SAP_BSPAN in the gre protocol field, and then
> >> give the bpdu packet without any other ethernet/llc header. This patch
> >> currently tries to fake the ethernet/llc header before passing the
> >> packet up, but it is buggy (mac addresses are wrong at least). Maybe a
> >> better approach is to call directly into the bridging code. I didn't try
> >> that at first because it isn't modular, and may break other things that
> >> want to see the packet.
> >
> > Existing bridge code already has spanning tree.
>
> Yes, and I want to use that. But this packet is a bit strange in
> that it does not have the ethernet header on it. So what is the
> best way to pass it to existing code? Either fake the ethernet
> header, or pass it directly?
Likewise if the bridge STP bpdu input code was smarter, it could
deal with it maybe?
>
> >> +#if 0
> >> dev = alloc_netdev(sizeof(*t), name, ipgre_tunnel_setup);
> >> +#else
> >> + dev = alloc_netdev(sizeof(*t), name, ipgre_ether_tunnel_setup);
> >> +#endif
> >
> > "Do, or do not there is no try"
>
> I am looking for comments as to whether adding a netlink interface
> to control this is appropriate.
If we make bridge code type aware, then the ipgre tunnel wouldn't have to change.
> >> +__be16 ipgre_type_trans(struct sk_buff *skb, int offset)
> >> +{
> >> + u8 *h = skb->data;
> >> + __be16 flags = *(__be16*)h;
> >> + __be16 proto = *(__be16*)(h + 2);
> >> +
> >> + /* WCCP version 1 and 2 protocol decoding.
> >> + * - Change protocol to IP
> >> + * - When dealing with WCCPv2, Skip extra 4 bytes in GRE header
> >> + */
> >> + if (flags == 0 &&
> >> + proto == __constant_htons(ETH_P_WCCP)) {
> >> + proto = __constant_htons(ETH_P_IP);
> >> + if ((*(h + offset) & 0xF0) != 0x40)
> >> + offset += 4;
> >> + }
> >
> > Don't use __constant_htons() except in initializers and switch cases
> > (where gcc is too stupid to optimize the macro).
> >
>
> This is a problem in the existing code, which I am simply moving
> around. Should I fix it at the same time?
Usually if a diff touches some code, I try to make it use current practice.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-08-01 5:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-07-31 10:06 [RFC] gre: transparent ethernet bridging Philip Craig
2006-07-31 16:14 ` Stephen Hemminger
2006-08-01 1:15 ` Philip Craig
2006-08-01 5:08 ` Stephen Hemminger [this message]
2006-08-01 9:29 ` Philip Craig
2006-08-02 6:17 ` Philip Craig
2006-08-02 17:23 ` Stephen Hemminger
2006-08-03 1:08 ` Philip Craig
2006-08-02 7:42 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2006-08-03 1:33 ` Philip Craig
2006-08-03 7:33 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2006-08-03 9:14 ` Philip Craig
2006-08-03 19:40 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2006-08-04 1:00 ` Philip Craig
2006-08-04 8:02 ` Lennert Buytenhek
2006-08-07 1:55 ` Philip Craig
2006-08-10 13:09 ` Lennert Buytenhek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060731220822.444f04e4@localhost.localdomain \
--to=shemminger@osdl.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=philipc@snapgear.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).