Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Why\s+is\s+struct\s+ipv6hdr\s+still\s+old\-style\s+RFC1883\s+\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Why\s+is\s+struct\s+ipv6hdr\s+still\s+old\-style\s+RFC1883\s+\?\s*$/: 6 ]

Total 6 documents matching your query.

1. Why is struct ipv6hdr still old-style RFC1883 ? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 23:01:17 +0100; I'm currently doing some work for netfilter_ipv6 / ip6tables and had a very extensive look into the current linux 2.4.0-testX ipv6 code. The most obvious question arising was: Why is struct ipv6hdr; /archives/netdev/2000-11/msg00084.html (7,910 bytes)
2. Re: Why is struct ipv6hdr still old-style RFC1883 ? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 21:14:52 +0900; Do you mind if we, USAGI Project, decided to use new structures defined in RFC2292 / RFC2292bis? -- Hideaki YOSHIFUJI @ USAGI Project <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> PGP5i FP: F731 6599 5EB2 BBA7 1515 1323; /archives/netdev/2000-11/msg00085.html (8,387 bytes)
3. Re: Why is struct ipv6hdr still old-style RFC1883 ? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 21:16:16 +0300 (MSK); Because none of them are used by clear reason (byte wide filed spanning byte boundary is a non-sense). 0th word of header is accesed only as whole. If update consists in removing these bitfield crap; /archives/netdev/2000-11/msg00086.html (7,766 bytes)
4. Why is struct ipv6hdr still old-style RFC1883 ? (score: 1): Author: Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 23:01:17 +0100; Hi! I'm currently doing some work for netfilter_ipv6 / ip6tables and had a very extensive look into the current linux 2.4.0-testX ipv6 code. The most obvious question arising was: Why is struct ipv6h; /archives/netdev/2000-11/msg00218.html (7,925 bytes)
5. Re: Why is struct ipv6hdr still old-style RFC1883 ? (score: 1): Author: Hideaki YOSHIFUJI () <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 21:14:52 +0900; Do you mind if we, USAGI Project, decided to use new structures defined in RFC2292 / RFC2292bis? -- Hideaki YOSHIFUJI @ USAGI Project <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> PGP5i FP: F731 6599 5EB2 BBA7 1515 1323; /archives/netdev/2000-11/msg00219.html (8,443 bytes)
6. Re: Why is struct ipv6hdr still old-style RFC1883 ? (score: 1): Author: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 21:16:16 +0300 (MSK); Hello! Because none of them are used by clear reason (byte wide filed spanning byte boundary is a non-sense). 0th word of header is accesed only as whole. If update consists in removing these bitfiel; /archives/netdev/2000-11/msg00220.html (7,794 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 6
Page: [1]