| To: | "YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@" <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] IPv6, sit: set prefix length 64 for link-local addresses |
| From: | Jan Oravec <jan.oravec@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 5 Oct 2003 14:35:36 +0200 |
| Cc: | davem@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20031005.212846.50858920.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> |
| References: | <20030926175405.GA31498@wsx.ksp.sk> <20030926201953.3dfc67bf.davem@redhat.com> <20031005091844.GA23676@wsx.ksp.sk> <20031005.212846.50858920.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> |
| Reply-to: | Jan Oravec <jan.oravec@xxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.1i |
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 09:28:46PM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@ wrote: > In article <20031005091844.GA23676@xxxxxxxxxx> (at Sun, 5 Oct 2003 11:18:45 > +0200), Jan Oravec <jan.oravec@xxxxxxx> says: > > > The function sit_add_v4_addrs() calls ipv6_add_addr() with plen 64 if local > > endpoint of tunnel is not configured, so I do not see a reason to set plen > > to 128 if local endpoint is configured. > > This patch seems logically wrong. You mean the text above (current kernel implementation) or the patch which sets it to 64 in both cases? If the patch is wrong, can you explain why? Jan |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [RFC] add rtnl semaphore to linux-atm, chas williams |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [2.6 PATCH] ipvs - two additional minor patches, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] IPv6, sit: set prefix length 64 for link-local addresses, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH] IPv6, mcast: deactivate timers before ipv6_mc_destroy_dev(), Jan Oravec |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |