* jamal <1117209411.6383.104.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2005-05-27 11:56
> On Fri, 2005-27-05 at 17:16 +0200, Thomas Graf wrote:
> > Sorry but this is just one big hack:
> It maybe in the user space representation, but not in the kernel
> abstraction which is what i was refering to.
> In other words look at struct in_device;
Yes, it references the arp device specific parameters and so
does inet6_dev for the ndisc cache. But this repsents only the
current state, we might have neighbour table parameter sets
which are not bound to inetdevs in the future. However, I
regard this as minor and I can agree on moving the device
specific parameters into a inetdev based architecture but
I do NOT agree on moving gc_ into this architecture as well,
it doesn't belong there.
Nitpicking for a bit, although inet6_dev and in_device hold
reference to the their arp respectively ndisc parameter set,
the sysctl interface does not use this reference but stores
the ifindex of the netdevice, _which_ is correct I think
because parameter sets are _not_ limited to inetdevs in terms
of architecture but only in terms of current use.
> The deafult can be overriden by devX. So they dont need to sync.
> But this is a separate topic
I was not talking about in-sync but rather that gc_* only
appears in default/ but not in devX/. What I expect is that
every default parameter can be overwritten in devX which
is not true for gc_*. Which is the reason why I implemented
them outside of the NDTPA_PARMS nested TLV.
> I am afraid you are looking at this from the wrong angle (user space),
> Thomas ;->
> The abstraction in the kernel is proper.
> To redraw that model again with the exact structure names:
> netdevice ->
> L2 config stuff
> config stuff
> more config stuff
> netdevice protocol config:
> -> v4 specific (struct in_device)
> ----> IPV4 addresses (ifa_list), ARP params(arp_parms),etc
> -> v6 specific (struct inet6_dev)
> ----> IPV6 addresses(addr_list), ndisc params (nd_parms), etc
> There are a few more items but i am leaving them out for brevity.
> I hope it makes more sense now.
I understand your architecture and if we follow this thought
we'd have a "default" netdevice which repesents all default
settings. I do agree with this architecture but the problematic
question remains: Do we want parameters in "default" which are
not available in devX? I think this question is what it gets
down to in the end. If we say, yes we do want this, then we
can implement all generic settings, such as tcp_, using this
scheme as well. I don't disagree with this completely but I
find it not very intuitive from a user perspective.