| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Fix Prefix Length of Link-local Addresses |
| From: | Derek Fawcus <dfawcus@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:36:28 +0100 |
| Cc: | sekiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, usagi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20021009.162438.82081593.davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; from davem@xxxxxxxxxx on Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 04:24:38PM -0700 |
| References: | <20021009234421.J29133@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20021009.161414.63434223.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <20021010002902.A3803@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20021009.162438.82081593.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 04:24:38PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Derek Fawcus <dfawcus@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:29:02 +0100 > > There are areas where the TAHI tests expect a certain behaviour > when more than one behaviour is acceptable. > > Great, that's what I was trying to find out. > > Now I just need to know if this link-local prefix case > is one such issue. :-) That I can't answer, since I've not had that one specifically thrown at me as a test failure condition. However, in a previous email I did indicate the two different ICMPv6 errors that could be generated. So I guess it's a case of see if this was a TAHI failure, and if so then is it that TAHI want's to get a 'no route to destination' when 'address unreachable' should suffice. DF |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Fix Prefix Length of Link-local Addresses, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Fix Prefix Length of Link-local Addresses, Yuji Sekiya |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Fix Prefix Length of Link-local Addresses, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Fix Prefix Length of Link-local Addresses, Yuji Sekiya |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |