| To: | davem@xxxxxxxxxx (David S. Miller) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Implementation for IPv6 MIB:ipv6AddressTable |
| From: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Date: | Tue, 7 Oct 2003 15:16:20 +0400 (MSD) |
| Cc: | mashirle@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20031007034051.3fcb3218.davem@redhat.com> from "David S. Miller" at οΛΤ 07, 2003 03:40:51 |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Hello! > Do you think it is large enough for timestamp? :) If it is not, "unsigned long" is not enough either. Actually, this does not depend on our implementation. If people implement a MIB, required precision of these times is prescribed in the rfc. And this is definitely not jiffies. Alexey |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Implementation for IPv6 MIB:ipv6AddressTable, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Implementation for IPv6 MIB:ipv6AddressTable, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Implementation for IPv6 MIB:ipv6AddressTable, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Implementation for IPv6 MIB:ipv6AddressTable, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |