| To: | lordbeatnik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: sin6_scope_id |
| From: | Yuji Sekiya <sekiya@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:32:07 -0800 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | In your message of "Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:14:14 -0800" <200001140114.RAA31198@ns1.filetron.com> |
| Organization: | Information Sciences Institute |
| References: | <200001140114.RAA31198@ns1.filetron.com> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Wanderlust/2.2.15 (More Than Words) SEMI/1.13.7 (Awazu) FLIM/1.13.2 (Kasanui) MULE XEmacs/21.1 (patch 8) (Bryce Canyon) (sparc-sun-solaris2.7) |
At Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:14:14 -0800, David Jeffery <lordbeatnik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > if (addr_len < sizeof(struct sockaddr_in6)) > return -EINVAL; > > would reject current userspace programs without sin6_scope_id. I also agree. It sounds good to introduce SOCKADDR_IN6_MIN into kernel for backword compatibility. I think this method can keep binary backward compatibility for existing IPv6 applications. Many of existing IPv6 applications assume that Linux IPv6 stack doesn't have sin6_scope_id. BTW, in addition to introducing sin6_scope_id into kernel, I think we should intorduce it into glibc functions. It causes not less changes into kernel and glibc. Is there anyone who is a developper of glibc in this mailing list ? -- SEKIYA Yuji USC/ISI Computer Networks Division 7 <sekiya@xxxxxxx / sekiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx / sekiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | kernel 2.0.38: getting route entries addendum/patch. (further), Gigi Sullivan |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Question on binding DHCP to an interface (by ifname, not IP/netmask)., Ben Greear |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: sin6_scope_id, Hideaki YOSHIFUJI |
| Next by Thread: | Re: sin6_scope_id, Philip Blundell |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |