Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*sin6_scope

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*sin6_scope_id\s*$/: 34 ]

Total 34 documents matching your query.

1. Re: sin6_scope_id (score: 1): Author: Yuji Sekiya <sekiya@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 15:55:01 -0800; Hello Alexey ! Hmm... OK. I understand YOUR opnion. YOU don't like the idea of scope_id. But I DON'T AGREE... I think many plathomes such as Solaris, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, WinNT and other commerc; /archives/netdev/2000-01/msg00016.html (9,932 bytes)
2. Re: sin6_scope_id (score: 1): Author: Jim Bound <bound@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 19:56:15 -0500; Everyone has to support sin6_scope_id. This all has been discussed on ipng list. There will be an update to rfc2553 soon in the space of sin6_scope_id. It will not affect kernel implementations of s; /archives/netdev/2000-01/msg00017.html (8,173 bytes)
3. Re: sin6_scope_id (score: 1): Author: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 16:09:31 +0300 (MSK); Yes, Sir! Are we in the army now? 8) Let me to cite the only intelligible argument for sin6_scope_id (your one, right?) to show people, who did not listen ipng, style of IPng WG discussions, resulti; /archives/netdev/2000-01/msg00021.html (8,308 bytes)
4. Re: sin6_scope_id (score: 1): Author: lordbeatnik <lordbeatnik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 15:48:42 -0800; well, it's not a very good reason, (there are other ways of getting around it), but for telling which interface a multicast packet came from if you bound your multicast socket to ifindex 0 and as ano; /archives/netdev/2000-01/msg00026.html (8,790 bytes)
5. Re: sin6_scope_id (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 01:47:14 +0100; Or by using IPV6_PKTINFO Anyways, there is a unused 16bit field in the linux sockaddr_ipv6, so adding it later for source code compatibility is always possible. -Andi -- This is like TV. I don't like; /archives/netdev/2000-01/msg00027.html (9,531 bytes)
6. Re: sin6_scope_id (score: 1): Author: Yuji Sekiya <sekiya@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:36:18 +0900; Hello, Really ? Where is a unused 16 bit field ?? Furthermore, sin6_socpe_id requires 32bit field. Other operating systems has been implemented sin6_scope_id in sockaddr_in6 already. We encounterd th; /archives/netdev/2000-01/msg00028.html (9,389 bytes)
7. Re: sin6_scope_id (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 03:13:59 +0100; Sorry I was wrong. There isn't. With the 32bit requirement it would not have been sufficient anyways. Unfortunately it is rather hard to switch sockaddr* formats in Linux, you would need completely n; /archives/netdev/2000-01/msg00029.html (9,275 bytes)
8. Re: sin6_scope_id (score: 1): Author: Yuji Sekiya <sekiya@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:14:07 +0900; Hello Alexey, Do you intend to implement this feature in linux-2.5 ? :-) If so, We are very happy !! I think you are now very busy for releasing linux-2.4 kernel. I and Yoshifuji hope that you will l; /archives/netdev/2000-01/msg00030.html (9,295 bytes)
9. Re: sin6_scope_id (score: 1): Author: Jim Bound <bound@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 22:59:34 -0500; You know I did mean it like that. Its a req per the IETF. A platform does not have to implement anything its a matter of what will be expected and compliant by the market. I suggest to you that Linu; /archives/netdev/2000-01/msg00031.html (9,114 bytes)
10. Re: sin6_scope_id (score: 1): Author: Hideaki YOSHIFUJI (吉藤英明) <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:44:00 +0900; We, Sekiya, I and other Linux IPv6 Users JP members, discussed on this issue, and now we think Linux must not go wrong. Delays are dangerous. Let's make a room for sin6_scope_id as soon as possible.; /archives/netdev/2000-01/msg00032.html (9,648 bytes)
11. Re: sin6_scope_id (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:14:14 -0800; Alexey can't just add the sin6_scope_id field. It would break userspace. for example, the following line from inet6_bind if (addr_len < sizeof(struct sockaddr_in6)) return -EINVAL; would reject curre; /archives/netdev/2000-01/msg00034.html (10,072 bytes)
12. Re: sin6_scope_id (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 11:08:43 +0900; I agree. We've already discussed on this transitional problem, and the solition we reached at that time is similar to yours. The differences is that we should use sizeof(struct sockaddr_in6_min) inst; /archives/netdev/2000-01/msg00035.html (9,599 bytes)
13. Re: sin6_scope_id (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:32:07 -0800; 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 e; /archives/netdev/2000-01/msg00038.html (9,505 bytes)
14. Re: sin6_scope_id (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 10:00:41 +0000; Yes. I agree; it would be fairly futile to introduce sin6_scope_id into the kernel without having matching changes in glibc. p.; /archives/netdev/2000-01/msg00044.html (8,740 bytes)
15. Re: sin6_scope_id (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 14:46:35 -0800; Hello, Yoshifuji has made a patch for supporting sin6_scope_id. It works well with current glibc which has no sin6_scope_id. The patch can intorduce sin6_scope_id function into kernel without any pro; /archives/netdev/2000-01/msg00047.html (9,845 bytes)
16. sin6_scope_id (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 17:53:00 +0900; Hello Alexey and folks, We(Linux IPv6 Group in Japan) found the portability problem that sin6_scope_id member is missing in Linux kernel. When we ported some applications to IPv6 ready, we encountere; /archives/netdev/1999-12/msg00077.html (10,195 bytes)
17. Re: sin6_scope_id (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxx; Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 19:07:59 +0300 (MSK); Yes. Linux does not follow this RFC. It complies to previous RFC. Certainly, it is IPV6_PKTINFO. Or this one. IP_PKTINFO. IPv4 has the same problems as IPv6 does. After thinking a bit, you will unde; /archives/netdev/1999-12/msg00081.html (8,861 bytes)
18. Re: sin6_scope_id (score: 1): Author: Yuji Sekiya <sekiya@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 15:55:01 -0800; Hello Alexey ! Hmm... OK. I understand YOUR opnion. YOU don't like the idea of scope_id. But I DON'T AGREE... I think many plathomes such as Solaris, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, WinNT and other commerc; /archives/netdev/2000-01/msg00073.html (10,096 bytes)
19. Re: sin6_scope_id (score: 1): Author: Jim Bound <bound@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 19:56:15 -0500; folks, Everyone has to support sin6_scope_id. This all has been discussed on ipng list. There will be an update to rfc2553 soon in the space of sin6_scope_id. It will not affect kernel implementation; /archives/netdev/2000-01/msg00074.html (8,194 bytes)
20. Re: sin6_scope_id (score: 1): Author: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 16:09:31 +0300 (MSK); Hello! Yes, Sir! Are we in the army now? 8) Let me to cite the only intelligible argument for sin6_scope_id (your one, right?) to show people, who did not listen ipng, style of IPng WG discussions, r; /archives/netdev/2000-01/msg00078.html (8,342 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]