Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFC\]\s+GSO\:\s+Questions\s+for\s+IPVS\s+and\s+GSO\s+for\s+IPv6\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFC\]\s+GSO\:\s+Questions\s+for\s+IPVS\s+and\s+GSO\s+for\s+IPv6\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [RFC] GSO: Questions for IPVS and GSO for IPv6 (score: 1): Author: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 00:39:28 +0300 (EEST); Hello, I got it from iptunnel_xmit(), I don't see it for IPv6 and I was not very sure about it. We can also leave it for another patch. Yes, 0 or SIT with some comment can be enough for a bugfix chan; /html/lvs-devel/2014-07/msg00053.html (9,728 bytes)
2. Re: [RFC] GSO: Questions for IPVS and GSO for IPv6 (score: 1): Author: Alex Gartrell <agartrell@xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 20:15:37 -0700; Thanks for putting this up Julian. As a meta-point, working with upstream isn't necessarily something that has come easily or obviously to us corporate shills at Internet companies, but it's pretty o; /html/lvs-devel/2014-07/msg00043.html (12,898 bytes)
3. Re: [RFC] GSO: Questions for IPVS and GSO for IPv6 (score: 1): Author: David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 15:43:08 -0700 (PDT); Correct. SIT works because we register an "ipv4" offload for protocol ipv6. You'll need to add an inet6 offload, but I am not sure whether you can just reuse the SIT skb gso flag, you might need to a; /html/lvs-devel/2014-07/msg00042.html (9,482 bytes)
4. [RFC] GSO: Questions for IPVS and GSO for IPv6 (score: 1): Author: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 10:21:17 +0300 (EEST); Hello, IPVS (IP Virtual Server) has a sending mode to encapsulate IPv6 packet in a new IPv6 header (like ip6ip6 tunnel). As IPVS is lacking skb->encapsulation support we are trying to call iptunnel_h; /html/lvs-devel/2014-07/msg00039.html (12,337 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]