Re: IPv6: NS -> NA reply RFC2461 SHOULD considerations [patch]

netdev

Re: IPv6: NS -> NA reply RFC2461 SHOULD considerations [patch]

To:	Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	Re: IPv6: NS -> NA reply RFC2461 SHOULD considerations [patch]
From:	"David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Thu, 3 May 2001 17:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
Cc:	<netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <usagi-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:	<Pine.LNX.4.33.0105030033560.32077-200000@xxxxxxxxxx>
References:	<Pine.LNX.4.33.0105030033560.32077-200000@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender:	owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx

Pekka Savola writes:
 > Warning: the patch has not been tested extensively, but compiles and
 > doesn't seem to cause too major side effects. Double check for
 > sanity / better way to do it.

Please let me know if you'd like me to apply this patch, it looks
fine to me.  You could combine it with the other ndisc changes
you posted today plus the net_ratelimit() work I've asked for.

Thanks.

Later,
David S. Miller
davem@xxxxxxxxxx

[More with this subject...]

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
IPv6: NS -> NA reply RFC2461 SHOULD considerations [patch], Pekka Savola Re: IPv6: NS -> NA reply RFC2461 SHOULD considerations [patch], David S. Miller <=

Previous by Date:	Re: IPv6: Incoming RA source-address may be non- link-local, David S. Miller
Next by Date:	Re: IPv6: the same address can be added multiple times, David S. Miller
Previous by Thread:	IPv6: NS -> NA reply RFC2461 SHOULD considerations [patch], Pekka Savola
Next by Thread:	[BUG] freeze Alpha ES40 SMP 2.4.4.ac3, another TCP/IP Problem ? ( was 2.4.4 kernel crash , possibly tcp related ), Cabaniols, Sebastien
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]