> On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 04:06:28PM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
>> I agree to remove offset parameter in this case. What about (as
>> already suggested by James) to take into account possible alignment
>> issues with previous version of L2TPv3 protocol using 'L2 specific
>> sublayer'?
>>
> I th
On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 04:06:28PM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> I agree to remove offset parameter in this case. What about (as
> already suggested by James) to take into account possible alignment
> issues with previous version of L2TPv3 protocol using 'L2 specific
> sublayer'?
>
I think Jame
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 08:28:03PM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
>> Perhaps I am little bit polarized on UABI issue, but I was rethinking
>> about it and maybe removing offset parameter would lead to an
>> interoperability issue for device running L2TPv3 since offset
>> parameter is there and it
On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 08:59:44PM +, James Chapman wrote:
> I just realised the peer_offset attribute changes are already applied in
> net-next. (I missed these when they were submitted just before Christmas.)
> Should these commits be reverted? We probably don't want v4.15 to get an
> additio
On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 08:28:03PM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> Perhaps I am little bit polarized on UABI issue, but I was rethinking
> about it and maybe removing offset parameter would lead to an
> interoperability issue for device running L2TPv3 since offset
> parameter is there and it is no
On 02/01/18 20:08, James Chapman wrote:
On 02/01/18 18:05, Guillaume Nault wrote:
Lorenzo, is this being added to fix interoperability with another
L2TPv3
implementation? If so, can you share more details?
Hi James,
I introduced peer_offset parameter to fix a specific setup where
tunnel endp
On 02/01/18 17:50, Guillaume Nault wrote:
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 06:53:56PM +, James Chapman wrote:
On 28/12/17 19:45, Guillaume Nault wrote:
Here we have an option that:
* creates invalid packets (AFAIK),
* is buggy and leaks memory on the network,
* doesn't seem to have any u
On 02/01/18 19:28, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
Lorenzo, is this being added to fix interoperability with another L2TPv3
implementation? If so, can you share more details?
Hi James,
I introduced peer_offset parameter to fix a specific setup where
tunnel endpoints
running L2TPv3 would use different
On 02/01/18 18:05, Guillaume Nault wrote:
Lorenzo, is this being added to fix interoperability with another L2TPv3
implementation? If so, can you share more details?
Hi James,
I introduced peer_offset parameter to fix a specific setup where
tunnel endpoints
running L2TPv3 would use different v
>> > Lorenzo, is this being added to fix interoperability with another L2TPv3
>> > implementation? If so, can you share more details?
>> >
>>
>> Hi James,
>>
>> I introduced peer_offset parameter to fix a specific setup where
>> tunnel endpoints
>> running L2TPv3 would use different values for tx o
> > Lorenzo, is this being added to fix interoperability with another L2TPv3
> > implementation? If so, can you share more details?
> >
>
> Hi James,
>
> I introduced peer_offset parameter to fix a specific setup where
> tunnel endpoints
> running L2TPv3 would use different values for tx offset (
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 06:53:56PM +, James Chapman wrote:
> On 28/12/17 19:45, Guillaume Nault wrote:
> > Here we have an option that:
> >* creates invalid packets (AFAIK),
> >* is buggy and leaks memory on the network,
> >* doesn't seem to have any use case (even the manpage
> >
> Sorry for only just seeing this (vacation).
>
>
> On 28/12/17 19:45, Guillaume Nault wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 07:23:48PM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
>>>
>>> On Dec 28, Guillaume Nault wrote:
After a quick review of L2TPv3 and pseudowires RFCs, I still don't see
how a
Sorry for only just seeing this (vacation).
On 28/12/17 19:45, Guillaume Nault wrote:
On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 07:23:48PM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
On Dec 28, Guillaume Nault wrote:
After a quick review of L2TPv3 and pseudowires RFCs, I still don't see
how adding some padding between the L
On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 07:23:48PM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> On Dec 28, Guillaume Nault wrote:
> > After a quick review of L2TPv3 and pseudowires RFCs, I still don't see
> > how adding some padding between the L2TPv3 header and the payload could
> > constitute a valid frame. Of course, the b
On Dec 28, Guillaume Nault wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 03:10:18PM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> > Introduce peer_offset parameter in order to add the capability
> > to specify two different values for payload offset on tx/rx side.
> > If just offset is provided by userspace use it for rx si
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 03:10:18PM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> Introduce peer_offset parameter in order to add the capability
> to specify two different values for payload offset on tx/rx side.
> If just offset is provided by userspace use it for rx side as well
> in order to maintain compatib
Introduce peer_offset parameter in order to add the capability
to specify two different values for payload offset on tx/rx side.
If just offset is provided by userspace use it for rx side as well
in order to maintain compatibility with older l2tp versions
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi
---
incl
18 matches
Mail list logo
