[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] anycast support for IPv6, updated to 2.5.44

To: yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] anycast support for IPv6, updated to 2.5.44
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:47:35 -0800 (PST)
Cc: dlstevens@xxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20030320.124428.95965257.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20030320.120136.108400165.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxx> <20030319.192331.95884882.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <20030320.124428.95965257.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
   From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxx>
   Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:44:28 +0900 (JST)

   In article <20030319.192331.95884882.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> (at Wed, 19 Mar 2003 
19:23:31 -0800 (PST)), "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> says:
   > Please propose alternative API, or do you suggest not
   > to export this facility to user at all?
   I like to assign address like unicast (using ioctl and rtnetlink 
   We suggest you not exporting this facilicy until finishing new API
   (And, another API would be standardized;
   This is another reason why I am against exporting that API for now.)

I think anycast addresses are more like multicast than unicast.  Do
you agree about this?

But here is what really matters, does the advanced IPV6 socket API
say anything about a user API for anycast?

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