From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brian Haley Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/03][RESUBMIT] net: EtherIP tunnel driver Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:49:14 -0400 Message-ID: <451840CA.5060901@hp.com> 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> <20060925083249.GC23028@zlug.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, jamal , Jan-Benedict Glaw , Patrick McHardy , davem@davemloft.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from atlrel7.hp.com ([156.153.255.213]:33166 "EHLO atlrel7.hp.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751109AbWIYUtV (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:49:21 -0400 To: Joerg Roedel In-Reply-To: <20060925083249.GC23028@zlug.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Joerg Roedel wrote: >> 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. RFC 791 (IPv4) Appendix B does give instructions on byte ordering for all IPv4 headers and data, and RFC 791 is listed in the References for RFC 3378. I noticed this is only Informational, not a Standards track document, so I guess the non-interoperable implementations kind of go with the territory. -Brian