In article
<OF2F9C078B.064A8A19-ON87256E30.0077B005-88256E30.0077AF76@xxxxxxxxxx> (at Wed,
4 Feb 2004 13:49:51 -0800), David Stevens <dlstevens@xxxxxxxxxx> says:
> These are defined by draft-ietf-magma-msf-api-03.txt to be in
> netinet/in.h (no place else). What's the advantage of adding another
> copy in in6.h (which currently isn't used by anything)? Portable user apps
> must include netinet/in.h for them, and in-kernel code already does.
(I assume you're talking about the "alternatives.")
Kernel do not use netinet/*.h.
My main point is, do not let people (or myself) forget reserved
(or used) range. So, it is enough for me to add a comment on that.
Well, I really do not think that the name of MCAST_xxx is good.
Numeric assignment of "MCAST_xxx" functionalities
is only required to be unique in that level in theory
since we put MCAST_xxx at network level (IPPROTO_{IP,IPV6} for now).
However, they are share just because of the name.
Anyway, what I want to add is some small note on shared range.
Thanks.
--
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI @ USAGI Project <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
GPG FP: 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF 80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA
|