Re: Double stacked VLANs (was Re: Question on header check)

On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 07:21:18AM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> >>packet on socket on eth0 = no tag on packet on wire
> >>packet on socket on eth0.1 = VLAN1 tag on packet on wire
> >>packet on socket on eth0.1.2 = VLAN2 tag on VLAN1 tag on packet on wire
> >>
> >
> >I agree.  If the program which owns the raw socket *really* wants
> >to send a non-vlan frame then it would probably use eth0!
> 
> We currently will encapsulate a raw pkt into a vlan packet.  This
> makes things like (older?) dhcp work, for instance, so we have to
> retain at least this feature.
> 
> If we do not want to encapsulate q in q, that is fine...but it will
> probably break some dhcp servers, at least.

Hmm? If dhcpd is running on a VLAN interface tags should indeed be
added to packets. (eth0.1 example above)

Or do you mean that people run dhcpd on eth0 but expect it to still
serve VLANs? I don't think that should work.


//Peter