| To: | krkumar@xxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 2/2] Prefix List and O/M flags against 2.4.21 |
| From: | YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 18 Jul 2003 00:22:09 +0200 (CEST) |
| Cc: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307171413100.1353-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | USAGI Project |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307171336430.1353-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307171413100.1353-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307171413100.1353-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (at Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:06:02 -0700 (PDT)), Krishna Kumar <krkumar@xxxxxxxxxx> says: > The same patch against 2.4.21 Hmm, you seems still misunderstanding some of our points. :-p Alexey says we may want to use ifi_family for per-interface L3 information including M/O bits. At least, new RTM_xxx should not be restricted to get such flags. -- Hideaki YOSHIFUJI @ USAGI Project <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> GPG FP: 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF 80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA |
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH 2/2] Prefix List and O/M flags against 2.4.21, Krishna Kumar |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Anycast usage, final diagnosis? (was: IPv6: Fix broken anycast, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
| Previous by Thread: | [PATCH 2/2] Prefix List and O/M flags against 2.4.21, Krishna Kumar |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 2/2] Prefix List and O/M flags against 2.4.21, Krishna Kumar |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |