[Top] [All Lists]

Re: sin6_scope_id (Re: SIOCGIFCONF and IPv6 addresses)

To: yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Hideaki YOSHIFUJI)
Subject: Re: sin6_scope_id (Re: SIOCGIFCONF and IPv6 addresses)
From: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:14:35 +0300 (MSK)
Cc: misiek@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20000223083608A.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> from "Hideaki YOSHIFUJI" at Feb 23, 0 08:36:08 am
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx

> Hmm, please tell me what you think ugly

Ugly? Well, all. 8)8) Do not be bothered, "ugly" is aestetical rather
than technical category. As rule, author understands this himself
by plain peering at his product. F.e. how do you find putting
with_scopeid flag close to ipv6 parameter block but not inside it? 8)

>       (or wrong).

We will discuss it a bit later. Probably, it is me who is wrong.
F.e. why does the patch always interpret scope_id for multicasts as ifindex?
Multicast addresses have scope exactly as unicast ones.

Also, I can answer one question asked in the patch: af_inet6.c
"Why don't we check this?". We do not check this, because it
is undefined. Internal functions copy to kernel buffer of fixed
size 128 and return true address length.

Actually, I want to kill this sk->with_scopeid. It is evidently wrong
feature, this state cannot be discovered and should not be stored.

BTW what is "future" of multicast addresses with TCP? I never
heard this before.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>