| To: | mashirle@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [Issues] Implementation for IPv6 MIB:ipv6PrefixTable |
| From: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Date: | Fri, 24 Oct 2003 21:59:27 +0400 (MSD) |
| In-reply-to: | <20031024044708.236f0d22.davem@redhat.com> from "David S. Miller" at Oct 24, 2003 04:47:08 AM |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Hello! > First, do you think it's a good idea to save all prefix objects in routing > table? Those which are on-link, of course. > Second, where is the best location for the off-link prefix, on-link flag 0 > prefix to be saved? Do you really think off-link prefixes are to be saved? Prefix in use is onlink by defintion, so just return 1 in these bit and ignore off-link prefixes completely, they are meaningless, are not they? > Third, do you think it's a good idea to implement a prefix table/per > interface in the kernel? Well, if SNMP is going to be used as a tool to snoop ndisc promiscuously (which seems to be the case if it shows inforrmation about offlink prefixes), then it is definitely not a kernel task. Alexey |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | possible bug in tcp_input.c, Tomas Szepe |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH] Limit SO_BSDCOMPAT warning, Andi Kleen |
| Previous by Thread: | [Issues] Implementation for IPv6 MIB:ipv6PrefixTable, Shirley Ma |
| Next by Thread: | RFC1323. No timestamping if SYN timestamp = 0. Bug or Feature?, Bartek Wydrowski |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |