| To: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxx (jamal) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Patch: Idea for RFC2863 conform OperStatus |
| From: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Date: | Mon, 14 Oct 2002 02:04:22 +0400 (MSD) |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.GSO.4.30.0210131726010.26803-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> from "jamal" at Oct 13, 2 05:34:03 pm |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Hello! > Actually the extra flags are only valid when IFF_RUNNING is not set. Even so... Well, then I am inclined not to agree to give even one of those valuable 16 spare bits for this. :-) I cannot imagine how much should I drink to consider states descibed in this rfc as a valid abstraction. Device can be working and can be dead by thousands of reasons. The best which I can propose is to show a string somewhere in /proc (well, or as a _string_ attribute in RTM_NEWLINK), explaining why device is not alive and let snmpd to translate this string to these bogus states to generate traps. Alexey |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Patch: Idea for RFC2863 conform OperStatus, jamal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Update on problems with sundance driver, Richard Gooch |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Patch: Idea for RFC2863 conform OperStatus, jamal |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Patch: Idea for RFC2863 conform OperStatus, jamal |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |