netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] IPv6 MIB:ipv6RouterAdvert netlink notification

To: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPv6 MIB:ipv6RouterAdvert netlink notification
From: Shirley Ma <xma@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:41:59 -0800
Cc: davem@xxxxxxxxxx, mashirle@xxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Importance: Normal
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sensitivity:

Yes. radvd should provide all these information. But radvd doesn't support this right now. I talked to someone who is patching SNMP to support new IP MIBs, he said it's better to support this through netlink, since netlink supports all other MIBs. Does netlink support user-user communication?

Anyway I will talk to radvd maintainers to ask them to support this if you think this netlink notification is not needed.

Thanks
Shirley Ma
IBM Linux Technology Center
15300 SW Koll Parkway
Beaverton, OR 97006-6063
Phone: (503) 578-7638
FAX: (503) 578-3228


Sent by: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx

To: Shirley Ma/Beaverton/IBM@IBMUS
cc: davem@xxxxxxxxxx, mashirle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPv6 MIB:ipv6RouterAdvert netlink notification


In article <OFDFE3736C.20FD7F98-ON87256E1D.00662F80@xxxxxxxxxx> (at Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:38:49 -0800), Shirley Ma <xma@xxxxxxxxxx> says:

> But the patch is still needed for the Router, so it should be put in
> ndisc_router_discovery() when it's determined as a router. Are you OK with
> that?

I don't understand why it is needed.
radvd is respoinsible for those information.

--
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI @ USAGI Project <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
GPG FP: 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF 80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA



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