From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joerg Roedel Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/03][RESUBMIT] net: EtherIP tunnel driver Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 10:32:49 +0200 Message-ID: <20060925083249.GC23028@zlug.org> References: <20060923120704.GA32284@zlug.org> <20060923121327.GH30245@lug-owl.de> <1159015118.5301.19.camel@jzny2> <20060923132736.GA345@zlug.org> <200609250107.k8P17h8A019714@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: jamal , Jan-Benedict Glaw , Patrick McHardy , davem@davemloft.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from ironport-c10.fh-zwickau.de ([141.32.72.200]:26242 "EHLO ironport-c10.fh-zwickau.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750716AbWIYIcv (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Sep 2006 04:32:51 -0400 To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200609250107.k8P17h8A019714@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 09:07:43PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 15:27:36 +0200, Joerg Roedel said: > > > (I assume you are speaking of the position of the 3 in the header). The > > RFC is not clear at this point. It defines that the first 4 bits in the > > 16 bit Ethernet header MUST be 0011. But it don't defines the > > byteorder of that 16 bit word nor if the least or most significant bit > > comes first. > > Unless stated otherwise, it's pretty safe to assume that all "on the wire" data > mentioned in an RFC is in 'network byte order'. That's why hton*() and ntoh*() > functions exist... Yes. Thats what the OpenBSD people did :-) The problem with the header is the bitorder. The OpenBSD people assumed that the least significant bits come first in the 16-bit header. > Is there something in the RFC that suggests that a byte order other than > 'network order' is possible/acceptable there? No. The RFC states nothing at all about byte- or bitorder. That is why the RFC is ambigious at this point.