On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 04:08:14AM +0100, Werner Almesberger wrote:
> James R. Leu wrote:
> > I'm not asking for the impossible. Sequence numbers and/or client
> > to server ACKs would solve the problem.
>
> So what do you do when the client doesn't ACK and you run out of buffer
> space ? Block all activities that may trigger netlink messages ?
>
> Obviously, in this case (interface up/down transitions), netlink doesn't
> scale well. A state-based interface would be better, e.g. netlink could
> generate a bit vector indicating the states (or the transitions, if it
> matters whether any have occurred), and update the vector until it has
> been read by the client. The question is of course whether we really
> need an optimized, scalable solution for this.
A simple way is to delete ip addresses when you down an interface and use
regular SIOCGIFCONF.
>
> However, in general, I get the impression that netlink is vastly
> over-engineered for most uses. Perhaps the situation could be improved
> if distributions would start to include libnetlink (so you can expect
> it to be available), and somebody would write a man page. Actually,
> isn't netlink from BSD ? If they also have a libnetlink, maybe there's
> some documentation too.
BSD has routing sockets, but they are very different from linux 2.2 netlink.
I did both ;) libnetlink is included in SuSE 7.0 and it contains a manpage.
I even sent it to Alexey, but somehow it doesn't seem to have appeared in
standard iproute2 yet (or I missed it)
I attached the manpage in case someone wants it.
-Andi
--
This is like TV. I don't like TV.
libnetlink.3
Description: Text document
|