On Jan 3, 2010, at 6:42 PM, Darren Reed wrote:
> On 23/12/09 06:09 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
>
>> DLT_IPv4 and DLT_IPv6?
>
> Can I request for DLT numbers to be allocated?
> 228 & 229 would appear to be next.
OK, DLT_IPV4 is 228 and DLT_IPV6 is 229.
I used capital-V; if people would prefer a lowe
On 23/12/09 06:09 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
On Dec 23, 2009, at 2:01 AM, Darren Reed wrote:
The links that support the IP tunnels are a fixed type, be
it IPv4 or IPv6, and are reported as being DLT_RAW because
there is no real layer 2 header present.
...
In the face of modern
On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 18:09 -0800, Guy Harris wrote:
> On Dec 23, 2009, at 2:01 AM, Darren Reed wrote:
>
> > The links that support the IP tunnels are a fixed type, be
> > it IPv4 or IPv6, and are reported as being DLT_RAW because
> > there is no real layer 2 header present.
>
> ...
>
> >
On 23/12/09 06:09 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
On Dec 23, 2009, at 2:01 AM, Darren Reed wrote:
The links that support the IP tunnels are a fixed type, be
it IPv4 or IPv6, and are reported as being DLT_RAW because
there is no real layer 2 header present.
...
In the face of modern
On Dec 23, 2009, at 2:01 AM, Darren Reed wrote:
> The links that support the IP tunnels are a fixed type, be
> it IPv4 or IPv6, and are reported as being DLT_RAW because
> there is no real layer 2 header present.
...
> In the face of modern processors, this might seem like
> micro-optim
Looking at the BPF code that gets generated for links such as
the IP tunnels in Solaris, there appears to be an inefficiency
in the opcodes generated. Let me explain.
The links that support the IP tunnels are a fixed type, be
it IPv4 or IPv6, and are reported as being DLT_RAW because
there is no
