Hello,
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 12:15:32PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 04:08:14AM +0100, Werner Almesberger wrote:
> > James R. Leu wrote:
> > > I'm not asking for the impossible. Sequence numbers and/or client
> > > to server ACKs would solve the problem.
> >
> > So what do you do when the client doesn't ACK and you run out of buffer
> > space ? Block all activities that may trigger netlink messages ?
> >
> > Obviously, in this case (interface up/down transitions), netlink doesn't
> > scale well. A state-based interface would be better, e.g. netlink could
> > generate a bit vector indicating the states (or the transitions, if it
> > matters whether any have occurred), and update the vector until it has
> > been read by the client. The question is of course whether we really
> > need an optimized, scalable solution for this.
>
> A simple way is to delete ip addresses when you down an interface and use
> regular SIOCGIFCONF.
That is basically a dump of the entire inteface table! If we are talking
about 16K interfaces that is an awful lot of work just because an interface
when down or up.
> > However, in general, I get the impression that netlink is vastly
> > over-engineered for most uses. Perhaps the situation could be improved
> > if distributions would start to include libnetlink (so you can expect
> > it to be available), and somebody would write a man page. Actually,
> > isn't netlink from BSD ? If they also have a libnetlink, maybe there's
> > some documentation too.
>
> BSD has routing sockets, but they are very different from linux 2.2 netlink.
>
> I did both ;) libnetlink is included in SuSE 7.0 and it contains a manpage.
> I even sent it to Alexey, but somehow it doesn't seem to have appeared in
> standard iproute2 yet (or I missed it)
>
> I attached the manpage in case someone wants it.
>
>
> -Andi
>
>
> --
> This is like TV. I don't like TV.
--
James R. Leu
|