Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Tunneling Semantics - Owner? | Date | Wed, 11 Nov 1998 18:00:17 +0100 | From | Jan Kasprzak <> |
| |
Chip Salzenberg wrote: : Would someone please point me to the person(s) who are responsible for : defining and/or changing the tunneling semantics? Is it just the set : of maintainers of the relevant source files, or is there a Greater : Master of IP (albeit still below Linus)?
I think tunneling devices were last touched by ANK. But I have found a problem with the tunnel semantics I have proposed in my previous mail
[ once again, I have proposed the tunnel setup to be changed from ifconfig tunl0 ipaddr up netmask 255.255.255.255 route add otherend dev tunl0 route add -net othernet gw otherend route del otherend to ifconfig tunl0 ipaddr up pointopoint otherend [ netmask 255.255.255.255 ] route add -net othernet gw otherend which looks more sane. ]
The problem is that when you do "ifconfig tunl0 ipaddr p-t-p otherend", the recent Linux kernels also installs the route to "otherend" via tunl0, which is certainly not the right thing - you want the other end of the tunnel to be reachable via normal interfaces/routes (to which you can send the encapsulated packets).
The other potential problem can be the non-P-T-P tunnels (can GRE be a virtual WAN instead of the virtual point-to-point link? IPIP certainly cannot, but is the same true for GRE over IP?).
-Yenya
-- \ Jan "Yenya" Kasprzak <kas at fi.muni.cz> http://www.fi.muni.cz/~kas/ \\ PGP: finger kas at aisa.fi.muni.cz 0D99A7FB206605D7 8B35FCDE05B18A5E // \\\ Czech Linux Homepage: http://www.linux.cz/ /// /// I think I'd rather be forced to learn perl than 68020 MMU. -Alan Cox \\\
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |