On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Ben Pfaff <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:blp@nicira.com">blp@nicira.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="h5">On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 01:18:03PM -0400, Jesse Gross wrote:<br>
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Ben Pfaff <<a href="mailto:blp@nicira.com">blp@nicira.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:08:50AM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:<br>
> > > Add support for the transport portion of the CAPWAP protocol as<br>
> > > an alternative to GRE for L2 over L3 tunneling. This is not<br>
> > > full support for the CAPWAP protocol.<br>
> ><br>
> > What's missing?<br>
><br>
> CAPWAP is a big protocol covering management of wireless access points (RFC<br>
> 5415 is 155 pages). Most of that describes a control protocol for setting<br>
> access points up and a relatively small subset is a component that allows<br>
> packets to be tunneled to a controller for inspection. This is that subset.<br>
<br>
</div></div>I see. Could that go in the commit message? Thanks.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Sure, I added that. </div></div><br>