In article <20030627.144752.78715628.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> (at Fri, 27 Jun 2003
14:47:52 -0700 (PDT)), "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> says:
> From: Krishna Kumar <krkumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 08:45:19 -0700
>
> rtnetlink_rcv_msg() calls dumpit() (via netlink_dump_start) only
> for those messages for which the last two bits are binary '10'. So
> I had to use these values. All the other *GET* macros use the same
> semantics.
>
> Ok, please retransmit your two patches (2.4.x and 2.5.x) to me
> under seperate cover. I don't keep a copy around of patches
> I've decided not to apply.
Well...
1. is it okay to have another hook for garbbig prefix list?
Userspace application can get such information via
- routing table
- interface flag
2. is the "managed" flags etc, which is per interface variable,
really NEWROUTE information?
It is NOT L2 thing, but it is per-link information.
I think it is NEWLINK thing.
What I'm thinking is:
- fix "ADDRCONF" flag in route information
- manage / other flags via NEWLINK message
(- No new interface to get prefix itself.)
--
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI @ USAGI Project <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
GPG FP: 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF 80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA
|