| To: | Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: IPSEC: on behavior of acquire |
| From: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | 02 Apr 2005 16:42:48 -0500 |
| Cc: | Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Masahide NAKAMURA <nakam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ipsec-tools-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, kaber@xxxxxxxxx, jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050402140019.GA13017@yakov.inr.ac.ru> |
| Organization: | jamalopolous |
| References: | <1112405144.1096.33.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050402140019.GA13017@yakov.inr.ac.ru> |
| Reply-to: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Sat, 2005-04-02 at 09:00, Alexey Kuznetsov wrote: > Hello! > > > a) -ERESTART is the correct signal to return > > Right behaviour is to behave like ARP. A few of packets are queued, > no errors (until timeout), no blocking. Herbert also mentions something along the same lines in his email. This would make a lot of sense! Is the state machine going to look something along the same lines as ARP? i.e incomplete->reachable etc? What would be a good code to return when you queue the packet? cheers, jamal |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Problem using HTB, Thomas Graf |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: IPSEC: on behavior of acquire, Thomas Graf |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: IPSEC: on behavior of acquire, Alexey Kuznetsov |
| Next by Thread: | Re: IPSEC: on behavior of acquire, Thomas Graf |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |