[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IFA_F_NO_NDISC (for vrrp)

To: Julian Anastasov <uli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: IFA_F_NO_NDISC (for vrrp)
From: Andrey Savochkin <saw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:59:38 +0800
Cc: Jerome Etienne <jetienne@xxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <>; from "Julian Anastasov" on Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 03:03:44PM
References: <> <>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hello Julian,

On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 03:03:44PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
>       Yes, using fib_select_addr() is not a problem. Oops,
> sorry,  my  question  was  for  fib_local_source(),  not for
> fib_select_addr()  but you  understood me.  We  want to keep
> using  inet_addr_type()  instead  of  fib_local_source()  in
> arp_solicit(). Only there. And it is not a problem the hosts
> to  be involved  in same  logical network  to allow  them to
> define  any number  of additional logical  networks as local
> but  not in  the "local"  table.  I  think, this  can't be a
> problem  for any user which can  add routes in other tables,
> i.e. not only in the "local" table :)
>       So,  can we just in this case to use inet_addr_type?
>       I  now see  that inet_addr_type() is changed too, to
> use  fib_lookup. I forgot about this.  Yep, with this change
> we   can't  do  this  (to   limit  the  local  addresses  in
> arp_solicit).   I have to wait for the final version of your
> patch :)

Using inet_addr_type() in arp_solicit(), especially the current one looking
into local table only, is wrong from conceptual point of view.
It makes decisions that can't be explained in human terms, only as some
manipulations in C language.
It's better not to call any checking function that to call wrong one.
I'll call fib_select_addr() unconditionally.

Best regards
                                        Andrey V.

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