On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 15:27:36 +0200, Joerg Roedel said: > (I assume you are speaking of the position of the 3 in the header). The > RFC is not clear at this point. It defines that the first 4 bits in the > 16 bit Ethernet header MUST be 0011. But it don't defines the > byteorder of that 16 bit word nor if the least or most significant bit > comes first. Unless stated otherwise, it's pretty safe to assume that all "on the wire" data mentioned in an RFC is in 'network byte order'. That's why hton*() and ntoh*() functions exist... Is there something in the RFC that suggests that a byte order other than 'network order' is possible/acceptable there?
Attachment:
pgpwnrqEKmtBD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 00/03][RESUBMIT] net: EtherIP tunnel driver
- From: Joerg Roedel <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 00/03][RESUBMIT] net: EtherIP tunnel driver
- References:
- [PATCH 00/03][RESUBMIT] net: EtherIP tunnel driver
- From: Joerg Roedel <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 00/03][RESUBMIT] net: EtherIP tunnel driver
- From: Jan-Benedict Glaw <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 00/03][RESUBMIT] net: EtherIP tunnel driver
- From: jamal <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 00/03][RESUBMIT] net: EtherIP tunnel driver
- From: Joerg Roedel <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 00/03][RESUBMIT] net: EtherIP tunnel driver
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 5/7] Use %gs for per-cpu sections in kernel
- Next by Date: Re: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC mmaps
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 00/03][RESUBMIT] net: EtherIP tunnel driver
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 00/03][RESUBMIT] net: EtherIP tunnel driver
- Index(es):
 |