On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [iso-2022-jp] 吉藤英明 wrote:
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307111143470.26262-100000@xxxxxxxxxx> (at Fri, 11
> Jul 2003 11:46:00 +0300 (EEST)), Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx> says:
> > > I don't like this
> > > while I would be ok to have configuration option
> > > not to support anycast.
> >
> > With "not to support anycast" you probably meant "not to support
> > subnet-router anycast address [automatically, in the kernel, as now]" ?
> > These are entirely different things.
>
> I meant disabling anycast entirely.
Oh, I'm not advocating that; however, being able to turn off the subnet
router anycast address might be a plus.
> > (Note that if there's a user-level API for setting anycast addresses, one
> > could kick the subnet-router anycast address out of the kernel too.
> > Whether that's desirable is another thing.)
>
> We have but we cannot; it is refcnt'ed.
I don't understand what you mean. Refcnt'ed by a userland process, so
that if you'd want the subnet-router anycast address, the whole time a
process (like radvd) should be running.. or what?
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
|