From nobody Mon May 02 21:09:35 2022 X-Original-To: dev-commits-src-all@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D1CC1AC3819; Mon, 2 May 2022 21:09:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@freebsd.org) Received: from hz.grosbein.net (hz.grosbein.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:c2c:26d8::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hz.grosbein.net", Issuer "hz.grosbein.net" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4KsbMJ1ssXz4vTQ; Mon, 2 May 2022 21:09:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@freebsd.org) Received: from eg.sd.rdtc.ru (root@eg.sd.rdtc.ru [62.231.161.221] (may be forged)) by hz.grosbein.net (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPS id 242L9jHa044179 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 2 May 2022 21:09:46 GMT (envelope-from eugen@freebsd.org) X-Envelope-From: eugen@freebsd.org X-Envelope-To: glebius@freebsd.org Received: from [10.58.0.11] (dadvw [10.58.0.11] (may be forged)) by eg.sd.rdtc.ru (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPS id 242L9iqR044954 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 3 May 2022 04:09:45 +0700 (+07) (envelope-from eugen@freebsd.org) Subject: Re: git: 28903f396af4 - main - ng_pppoe: introduce new sysctl net.graph.pppoe.lcp_pcp To: Gleb Smirnoff References: <202205021457.242EvJnm003356@gitrepo.freebsd.org> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-src-main@freebsd.org From: Eugene Grosbein Message-ID: <0a2c74bc-9f53-0007-e112-06afe1f73f1f@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 04:09:35 +0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 List-Id: Commit messages for all branches of the src repository List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/dev-commits-src-all List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,SHORTCIRCUIT autolearn=disabled version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Report: * -0.0 SHORTCIRCUIT No description available. * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on hz.grosbein.net X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4KsbMJ1ssXz4vTQ X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N 03.05.2022 3:53, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > So some packets sent by ng_ppp(4) need to be specially tagged so that vlan(4) > understands them. Why do we make this tagging in ng_pppoe(4) rather than in > ng_ppp(4)? This is limited to PPPoE intentionally because of troubles that may happen in case of unintentional reorder of PPP frames due to different Class of Service. It was tested for PPPoE case and believed to be safe in case of controlled transport network. It was not tested in general case of PPP over GRE (pptp) or other PPP-in-IP incapsulations, so I decided it's better to be safe than sorry. OTOH, I doubt it may be really useful for cases other than PPPoE.