[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-vlan
Subject:    Re: [VLAN] 802.1p only?
From:       Peter Stuge <stuge-vlan () cdy ! org>
Date:       2007-12-15 1:20:28
Message-ID: 20071215012028.26603.qmail () cdy ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 04:36:40PM -0800, Xin Huang wrote:
> >> I would investigate if the switch that you are using can indeed
> >> be used the way you want.
> 
> I was thinking it's a problem on the switch too. But after spending
> some time to read the standard, it appears to me that the switch
> was doing everything right. If you think it's wrong, please clarify
> what should the "DHCP offer" packet look like.

I haven't read the standard in a long time and didn't pay much
attention to only-p packets when I did.

If replies should indeed be tagless (I assume because the switch does
not set priority for the reply) then how do you suggest that Linux
should handle the incoming packet?


> There was a similar discussion in this forum two years ago:
> 
> http://www.candelatech.com/pipermail/vlan/2005-February/000241.html
> 
> As Ben Greear said in the above page: "I don't think VLAN-0 is going to
> work, and at the very least, you cannot use .1p w/out using .1q as the
> headers are one and the same."
> 
> Is the above conclusion still true?

Yes, it is still the same tag/header/4-octet prefix.


> If yes, is there any plan to make 802.1pwork without using 802.1q
> on Linux?

I think what Ben meant in that post is that it can't work withoug
using the .1q code in Linux. That said, if you are convinced that
it is correct, maybe you could produce a patch that will send all
incoming packets on eth0 also to eth0.0.


//Peter
_______________________________________________
Vlan mailing list
Vlan@candelatech.com
http://www.candelatech.com/mailman/listinfo/vlan
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]