[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] IPv6 MIB:ipv6DefaultRouterTable

To: "YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / _$B5HF#1QL@" <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPv6 MIB:ipv6DefaultRouterTable
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:37:00 -0800
Cc: xma@xxxxxxxxxx, mashirle@xxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20040116.041950.35757995.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <OFC6D64AE0.CEE7DA5F-ON87256E1C.0068A56A@xxxxxxxxxx> <20040116.041950.35757995.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 04:19:50 +0900 (JST)
YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / _$B5HF#1QL@ <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In article <OFC6D64AE0.CEE7DA5F-ON87256E1C.0068A56A@xxxxxxxxxx> (at Thu, 15 
> Jan 2004 11:09:47 -0800), Shirley Ma <xma@xxxxxxxxxx> says:
> > But if no applications use this value, and nothing is boken. It's not
> > harmful to change the kernel to provide MIBs in as-is format.
> Shirley, nobody can prove that nothing will be broken. :-)

And also, the current situation is OK as long as this value we present now
can be converted into the desired value.  Is this the case?

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>