netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] IPv6 MIB:ipv6RouterAdvert netlink notification

To: xma@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPv6 MIB:ipv6RouterAdvert netlink notification
From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 05:23:48 +0900 (JST)
Cc: davem@xxxxxxxxxx, mashirle@xxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <OF6E7E4DFA.6824D151-ON87256E1D.006A89B5@xxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: USAGI Project
References: <OF6E7E4DFA.6824D151-ON87256E1D.006A89B5@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
In article <OF6E7E4DFA.6824D151-ON87256E1D.006A89B5@xxxxxxxxxx> (at Fri, 16 Jan 
2004 11:41:59 -0800), Shirley Ma <xma@xxxxxxxxxx> says:

> 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?

Yes, netlink is one option and is possibly a good candidate.
I believe netlink supports user-user communication and 
rtadvd can use it to provide information to other entities.

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

I do not think netlink RA notification is required in kernel.
What you (or the radvd maintainer) need to do is to 
allocate some constants and structures for the message.

-- 
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>